Comments Received Regarding Bruce Philpott and the New Model for Municipal Fire Protection

No names or initials are posted with these comments unless the writer specifically requested that be done.

Additional comments may be sent to: halweber@earthlink.net

Open Government in Glendale California Home Page

******************************************************************************************************************************************

Reference for the discussion below between LA Firefighter and Bruce Philpott:

A New Model for Municipal Fire Protection by Retired Pasadena Police Chief Bruce Philpott

Comment #55: By Bruce Philpott Regarding the Glendale Fire Department’s Response to His Series of Presentations to the Glendale City Council

To: Interested Parties

From: Bruce Philpott

Date: 3-24-08

Re: Glendale Fire Department’s response to my series of presentations

Even though they are not calling it as such, it appears that the Glendale Fire Department is going to make a presentation before the city council this coming Tuesday, March 25 at 2:30 PM in response to my series of presentations before the city council late last calendar year. This will be a special presentation that, to my knowledge, will be the only one where there will be no accompanying report or other written documentation as the city does routinely in these kinds of matters. But this is consistent with a statement that Deputy Fire Chief Steve Howard said to me on December 11, 2007 during a meeting in his office. He said that the public would probably not see a copy of their response. Seems as though he was correct, even though it flies in the face of the normal way the city conducts its business. It apparently does not violate the sunshine laws but it is not in keeping with open and transparent government. They will probably have a hand out just before the presentation. This will not deter me from responding appropriately at a later date.

They chose to present the material in the afternoon and not during the regular city council session at 6:00PM when they would have many more viewers.

The citizens of Glendale have an opportunity to cause relatively minor alterations in policy that will cut emergency response times, save up to $15 million per year and double our fire resources in times of major disasters. A glossy Power Point presentation will not distract critically thinking citizens from conducting their own independent examination of the issues and reach their own conclusions. I will keep you informed

******************************************************************************************************************************************

Comment #54: By Hal Weber Regarding an Attempt by Glendale Management and the Glendale City Council to Conceal this Issue from the Public

Last week, March 16-22, 2008, was celebrated as Sunshine Week in many cities throughout this country, in national recognition of Open Government. This Tuesday, March 25th, Glendale Management, with no objection from any member of the Glendale City Council, is going to demonstrate its talent for hiding important information from the public.

On that day there is a SPECIAL meeting of the Glendale City Council at 2:30 in the afternoon, when few members of the public can either attend or watch on television. Why? Because Glendale Management and the Glendale City Council prefer that the public not see or hear Glendale Interim Fire Chief Don Biggs' response to former Pasadena Police Chief Bruce Philpott's eleven week series of Oral Communications Presentations criticizing certain Glendale Fire Department practices.

It is, of course, all perfectly legal. The meeting is open to the public and will be both televised and archived on the city web site. Unlike most presentations to the council, the public will find NO STAFF REPORT to review ahead of time posted in the City Council Agenda on the city web site. The public cannot prepare comments to Chief Don Biggs' presentation prior to the meeting, because he is conveniently keeping everything secret until the March 25th afternoon special event!

So much for Open Government (???) in Glendale California.

******************************************************************************************************************************************

Comment #53: By LA Firefighter Regarding Comment #52 by Bruce Philpott

In your Comment # 51, you persist in giving claim to my "secret meetings and conspiracies" and my claim that a Pasadena City Council member committed a crime. Nice try but I think that you failed in your attempt to divert and deflect the real issues of the new fire models constructed by career professional firefighters and chief officers who have combined experience that exceeds 300 years.

You've yet to identify the individuals involved in this group. Why is that? You make the assumption their counsel should be taken for granted. That is not how critical thinking is done.

While you rant on about non-existent conspiracy theories and criminal plots, the analytical reader can see through your effort at blowing a smoke screen. Because of this rather humorous and entertaining piece we will call Comment # 51 and because it has been a while since I have stated the new models, the following paragraphs will summarize them, absent the details of data that support them. One only has to go deeper into this document to read the data supporting the new methods of fire services that are more efficient, reduce response times, and save taxpayers up to $15 million per year. Readers can also draw their own conclusions about how each of us has stayed with the point of focus of this discussion. One can also go to my website: http://logicpoint.org/ to read the full text and summaries of my presentations before the Glendale City Council that contains all of the support data.

Bruce. Do you even read your own writings? You're the one who has stated the IAFF blackmailed the Clinton administration into approving the 2 in 2 out rule. You're the one who stated a Pasadena City Council was breaking the law in requesting campaign contributions from city property. I've only pointed out your scurrilous accusations. You have consistently implied that union contributions in the political process are somehow nefarious in nature. The analytical thinker you are embracing has only been shown the inconsistency in your logic and thought process. For that I and many others are thankful.

You have never challenged me on the data I produced from the GFD's own records that shows they are active responding and handling calls about 4% of their 24 hour shift. You also stated previously that the fire chief has to be held accountable for the policies that violate the Best Practice of Geographic Integrity that has been clearly violated by the GFD.

Why should I challenge you? The fact that firefighters are in the station ready to respond is activity enough. You somehow have this mindset that unless an individual is doing something (busywork?) they aren't being productive. The fire service functions in a passive capacity. Calls can not be created to keep one busy. I doubt you would like that model any more than the current scenario.

The first new model would restore Geographic Integrity by assuring that the first responders for medical and fire emergencies remain in their neighborhood fire stations. Since these stations are centrally located in each of the fire districts, they can respond to any location in their jurisdiction in about the same time. This equalizes the opportunity for all citizens in the fire district to receive similar response times.

This is an interesting philosophical change from previous statements where you have stated a preference for converting the current configuration to two man squads doing neighborhood patrols. So now you advocate that firefighters stay stationary in a centralized location. It would be great if you were to make up your mind and show some consistency.

As I noted in my audit and research, there are significant periods in the day when first responders take themselves out of service for non-essential activities. They close fire stations down to shop, jog and attend union meetings, for starters. When this occurs, other first responders in other fire districts have to respond in their place. This adds minutes to time-critical medical and fire emergencies.

Again, as I've stated in my previous writings: This is a leadership issue by the chief (aka expert) in that locale. As much as you believe yourself to be that individual you are not. The chief approves this type of activity and the associated risks for his/her community.

These unnecessary and excessive delays have already been chronicled by the GFD's own consultant, who in 2004, reported that there was a disturbing trend of what he referred to as "Failed Incidents" that were occurring in two geographic areas of the city. When I conducted an audit of one of the two problem areas of excessive delays, I discovered that the first responders had left their fire stations and where jogging in a remote park. The response times when they responded from the remote park averaged 7 minutes, 40 seconds, with some as long as 10 minute delays. This is twice the time of 4 minute response times had they responded from the fire station. I seem to recall at the time I first put this in writing, you were also critical of this practice.

See above response.

Heart attacks and strokes occur every day in Glendale and it is essential that medical emergency personnel get to them as fast as they possibly can. By driving out of district to conduct these unjustified activities as consistently reflected in their daily activity logs, time critical calls are being compromised. The career firefighter study group that I worked with over several years that included former fire chiefs, strongly criticized this policy. They said that the GFD would have a very difficult time trying to justify these practices.

Once again you mention the mythical and unidentified career firefighter group. You never mention their identities or individual qualifications. As such it is given all the credibility it deserves.

While the GFD has gone on record stating repeatedly to the public that seconds count in responding to medical and fire emergencies, their own practices reveal hypocrisy of the worst kind because it involves the well being of the public. Their own policy shows that they are willing to accept emergency response times that come close to doubling their average response time so they can conduct personal or non-essential activities. Here is one example that happened recently. On 2-27-08, the Glendale Civil Service Commission conducted a meeting. On the agenda was "Report on Fire Department Outreach Efforts", the purpose of which was to identify the reasons why the GFD was not able to hire anyone other than while males. When several members of the commission began to verbally criticize the department's lack of results in hiring women and other groups, the interim fire chief, Don Biggs, said, "we have failed, we have no excuse, we have only reasons". At this point, the on-duty fire union president, Capt. Stavros, who had been watching the proceedings on the local government channel, activated his engine company and drove to the city hall chambers where the meeting was being conducted. He then spoke to the commission and told them that females were hard to recruit because they go where the money is and there is a lot more overtime in other fire departments. He failed to mention that last year Glendale firefighters took home $30,000 additional compensation in the form of overtime. He also didn't tell them that he had driven his engine company out of its fire district to make that personal point. He had no problem in doing that even though the fire chief and his two deputy chiefs were already in the room and two had already testified. He also failed to put this activity on his daily activity log, probably not wanting to make a record of this violation of Geographic Integrity.

Apparently this was an activity approved by the chief with the approval of the City Council. There must have been a compelling reason to do all that you state. You'll have to request in the future that you be notified when those types of situations occur.

The second new model would bring staffing back to 3, from the 4 that has been in practice for a few years. Traditionally, fire apparatus have been staffed with 3. Staffing with 3 was the norm during the past decades when there were many more structure fires recorded. Today, there is a fraction of the structure fires compared to the past for many reasons I cited in previous text.

This is yet again another conflicting statement. You claim manpower is short and necessitates hiring a reserve force yet you desire a reduction in staffing. Which is it?

There is also less crime in Glendale than there has been in recent years. When are you going to advocate getting rid of high priced police officers and replacing them with academy and state qualified reserves who will work for a fraction of the cost. Once again you show your true colors. You place no value on the duties of a firefighter.

The majority of the work of an engine company is medical emergency back up to the rescue ambulance. These types of calls represent 87% of all emergency responses, and because over 99% of them are single person medical events, the 4^th firefighter on the responding engine is superfluous, wasteful and costly. In 90% of fire calls, one single engine company can adequately handle them, regardless if it is staffed with three or four. Glendale had no structure fires over $500,000 in damages last year and had five fires that had up to $250,000 in loss. When those events occur, the GFD can assemble as many engine and truck companies as it deems necessary to handle any structure fire. There have been no high rise fires in decades.

Superfluous, costly, and wasteful to you. Not to those policy makers who are responsible for the public's safety and the ramifications of that decision. Which isn't you.

This data clearly supports the staffing back to three firefighters. Taxpayers would save about $9 million per year. The entry-level firefighter in Glendale is paid $93,000, and with overtime he will be compensated at $123,000. Add 16% for paramedic certification.

You state that staffing with 4 and not 3 is "an insurance policy". The level of insurance protection by the fire department does not change when they are staffed with 3 or 4. Just ask the people who are serviced by fire departments that staff with 3. Also it is the ISO that sets fire insurance premiums. The public does not perceive any difference in service or protection levels. This was confirmed by the career firefighter study group and by my own audit.

My comments had nothing to do with buying insurance or the insurance ratings of a community. Once again you try to deflect from the point being made.

I agree with you that chief officers are one good source to seek information on establishing policy. On February 17, 2008, I spoke with Deputy Fire Chief Steve Howard of the GFD. He is in charge of the Operations Division. He admitted to me that it is common practice to staff with three firefighters, that it occurs almost daily – my audit revealed that it does, in fact, occur on every shift – and that he could not recall any adverse incidents or outcomes due to the first responders staffing with three. I don't know how much more confirmation you need.

The only confirmation I need is knowing that when I've needed the capability of having a fourth firefighter it was good to have accessible. Being the first due on a structure fire enables me to get far more work done. Having four individuals available to do CPR on an arrested patient is far more effective than only three. Chief Howard probably hasn't been on an engine company in years and has more than likely forgotten how labor intensive both types of incidents can be for those actually doing the tasks. As opposed to you, who seems to know all about a job he has never done himself.

Model # 3: Community Fire Reserve Corps

The last new model incorporates a Community Reserve Fire Corps. This model was highly recommended by the career firefighter study group. It is being utilized by other Class I fire departments in Los Angeles County and serves as a way to off-set the burgeoning costs associated with overtime staffing. This model, taken with the savings identified in the second model of staffing with 3, would

save taxpayers approximately $15 million per year or $150,000,000 over the next decade in Glendale alone. This model was recommended by the Los Angeles Area Fire Chiefs to control overtime (1996).

And yet that model has never been supported beyond this group. Apparently policy makers believe otherwise.

The reserve corps would consist of the same program that is found in the Glendale Police Department where police reserves save taxpayers millions of dollars per year. Where you have a reserve component of one to one in a police car, you would have a reserve component of one to the two or three regulars that would include the company captain and engineer, both highly trained and experienced firefighters. In the City of Oakland last month, applicants were sought for the position of firefighter. It might shock some people to know that over 8,400 people showed up. Many are already graduates of state-certified fire academies. Because there are so many young men and women who want a fire career and so few openings, one good opportunity for them is to join a reserve crops and get experience that may give them a greater chance in becoming a career firefighter. The only thing holding this back in many communities is the power and influence of the fire union.

I doubt the union is the only thing holding back this model. As the Pasadena City Councilmember you claimed was committing a crime pointed out in a roundabout way, you get what you pay for. And we've already discussed the relevance of applicants per job opening. ZERO!!

Does the Puente Hills fault system mean anything to you? It has three very large fault systems directly under the Los Angeles basin. It was discovered just a few years ago with some new highly sophisticated detection devices. These are active faults that, when released, will make the Northridge earthquake look like kids play. One of the most effective ways that local communities can gear up for the inevitability of a large quake, is to have a huge fire reserve corps made up of local people, who will be in place when it occurs. In Glendale, 96% of the first line firefighters live outside the city. The fire chief lives in Simi Valley and one deputy chief lives in Riverside. They may not be able to get to Glendale for hours or days. It would be reassuring to the public to have locally trained state-certified firefighters as reserves ready to begin the response and recovery phases of a major disaster.

And yet you somehow believe this group of volunteers is going to abandon their families and run out the door when an incident that could potentially affect and cause the breakdown of the social fabric of a region occurs? Your public assurance is nothing more than an umbrella that would melt in the rain. You should do more research on volunteer FD programs. The ability to attract individuals who are capable of responding during working hours is difficult at best. The additional cost of training a work force that is in constant turnover is a drain upon a system that is already stretched. I've already discussed this with you regarding the reserve firefighter model in Orange County.

And….should a city provide a wage that enables a city employee to live within the city? Do all of the Glendale PD patrol officers live within the city? Given the speed at which individuals resort to criminal behavior when an incident of the type you describe occurs, why are you critical of firefighters who live outside the city and not police?

I have been sharing these new models with a growing number of community groups and how they benefit the public by cutting response times and saving $15 million per year. Knowing how adamant you are about maintaining the status quo, would you like to be invited to one in the near future so that you and I can engage in a good old fashion debate? Let me know and I will be happy and pleased to arrange that.

Why? Just direct them to our dialogue here. They'll see your positions for what they are.

******************************************************************************************************************************************

Comment #52: By Bruce Philpott Regarding Comment #51 by LA Firefighter

In your Comment # 51, you persist in giving claim to my “secret meetings and conspiracies” and my claim that a Pasadena City Council member committed a crime. Nice try but I think that you failed in your attempt to divert and deflect the real issues of the new fire models constructed by career professional firefighters and chief officers who have combined experience that exceeds 300 years.

You have never challenged me on the data I produced from the GFD’s own records that shows they are active responding and handling calls about 4% of their 24 hour shift. You also stated previously that the fire chief has to be held accountable for the policies that violate the Best Practice of Geographic Integrity that has been clearly violated by the GFD.

These unnecessary and excessive delays have already been chronicled by the GFD’s own consultant, who in 2004, reported that there was a disturbing trend of what he referred to as “Failed Incidents” that were occurring in two geographic areas of the city. When I conducted an audit of one of the two problem areas of excessive delays, I discovered that the first responders had left their fire stations and where jogging in a remote park. The response times when they responded from the remote park averaged 7 minutes, 40 seconds, with some as long as 10 minute delays. This is twice the time of 4 minute response times had they responded from the fire station. I seem to recall at the time I first put this in writing, you were also critical of this practice.

While the GFD has gone on record stating repeatedly to the public that seconds count in responding to medical and fire emergencies, their own practices reveal hypocrisy of the worst kind because it involves the well being of the public. Their own policy shows that they are willing to accept emergency response times that come close to doubling their average response time so they can conduct personal or non-essential activities. Here is one example that happened recently. On 2-27-08, the Glendale Civil Service Commission conducted a meeting. On the agenda was “Report on Fire Department Outreach Efforts”, the purpose of which was to identify the reasons why the GFD was not able to hire anyone other than while males. When several members of the commission began to verbally criticize the department’s lack of results in hiring women and other groups, the interim fire chief, Don Biggs, said, “we have failed, we have no excuse, we have only reasons”. At this point, the on-duty fire union president, Capt. Stavros, who had been watching the proceedings on the local government channel, activated his engine company and drove to the city hall chambers where the meeting was being conducted. He then spoke to the commission and told them that females were hard to recruit because they go where the money is and there is a lot more overtime in other fire departments. He failed to mention that last year Glendale firefighters took home $30,000 additional compensation in the form of overtime. He also didn’t tell them that he had driven his engine company out of its fire district to make that personal point. He had no problem in doing that even though the fire chief and his two deputy chiefs were already in the room and two had already testified. He also failed to put this activity on his daily activity log, probably not wanting to make a record of this violation of Geographic Integrity.

You state that staffing with 4 and not 3 is “an insurance policy”. The level of insurance protection by the fire department does not change when they are staffed with 3 or 4. Just ask the people who are serviced by fire departments that staff with 3. Also it is the ISO that sets fire insurance premiums. The public does not perceive any difference in service or protection levels. This was confirmed by the career firefighter study group and by my own audit.

Model # 3: Community Fire Reserve Corps

******************************************************************************************************************************************

Comment #51: LA Firefighter’s Thoughts Regarding the Pasadena Weekly Article Regarding Bruce Philpott (Comment #50)

Hal,

Thank you for sending out the link to the article regarding Bruce. The writer did an okay job of being balanced. I notice there were no statements taken from the debate I had with Bruce that asked for Bruce to substantiate his claims of secret meetings and conspiracies. It was also missed that after much dialogue Bruce was forced to backtrack from his previous claim that a Pasadena City Council Member was committing a crime.

The article really put a stake through Bruce's claims by quoting the fire chief. The Chief is the expert for the community despite Bruce's belief otherwise. I doubt many if any on the council are going to go contrary to his advice. I'm also not surprised how Bruce throws out the union bogeyman at the end. What could have been a very informative article ended up being yet another conspiracy theory.

Bruce's repeated claims that firefighters aren't necessary due to the lack of inactivity is pretty bogus despite his facts. As I explained to him during our dialogue, one doesn't get to buy insurance only when it's needed.

Lastly, the overtime issue is once again taken out of context. While the salaries are listed, there is no corresponding column that details hours worked that allow the citizens to make an informed decision.

Those are the main reasons why Bruce will never be taken seriously despite this one article in an obscure local newspaper.

******************************************************************************************************************************************

Comment #50: Article in the Pasadena Weekly by Carl Kozlowski, 02/28/08, “Fire Starter”, Former Pasadena Police Chief Bruce Philpott turns up the heat on the Glendale Fire Department.

******************************************************************************************************************************************

Comment #49: JD Comments about the Policy of GFD Engines Driving Out-Of-District

Regarding the photo last week in Vanguard showing a Glendale fire engine company that had driven out of the city of Glendale and into a Tujunga shopping market parking lot so the firefighters could purchase food where they wanted to is clear evidence that the Glendale Fire Department is more concerned with their creature comforts than with providing the best services to the public. Former Pasadena Police Chief, Bruce Philpott, has driven this message home to the city council for the past several months citing numerous cases of these kinds of abuses. He has cited many occasions when our emergency first responders were doing things like food shopping out of their districts, jogging in remote parks, leaving their fire district to attend PR functions that only benefits their image, that cause unnecessary delays in medical responses that have time-critical outcomes such as full-arrest heart attacks and strokes. It

amazes me that the public has not taken more interest in this because it is their welfare that is at risk. It is my hope that the city council will see through this and make the best policy decision for us citizens who actually live here. JD

******************************************************************************************************************************************

Comment #48: LA Firefighter’s Thoughts Regarding Bruce Philpott, New Fire Models, Segment 11: Final Thoughts

Read Bruce’s final thoughts. I'll add of couple of my own.

As I already pointed out, there are serious shortcomings with a reserve force. The pool of available candidates is very limited due to the financial hardships placed upon anyone in the program. Bruce likes to think of it as a military model. He forgets the rest of the military's support of its personnel. Subsidized housing, food, medical care, and a pension plan that pays 50% after 20 years of service regardless of age.

The second issue is one of the potential for discriminatory hiring practices. I can only speak for the LAFD experience. The LAFD was just released from a federal decree that oversaw the hiring of new personnel by the US Dept of Justice. It was almost two decades the LAFD operated under that decree and I believe few if any other locales would be willing to make themselves vulnerable to that type of action.

While one is allowed to have an opinion, one should attempt to make it an informed opinion. When asked for valid sources, Bruce has responded with hearsay and unfounded anecdotes of secret conspiracy. Until the time comes when he produces valid and substantiated information his ideas will never gain any traction with the policy makers he so readily disparages.

******************************************************************************************************************************************

Comment #47: By LA Firefighter Regarding Comment #46 by Bruce Philpott

Bruce. The important point is that while the LAFC made these recommendations they are not willing to stand up and be the persons advocating this model to their policy makers. Again we get back to the conviction one has in their ideas as being valid. What difference do ratios have in the argument? If 1:1 is not a good idea, why is 3:1 okay. If a professional police officer's performance is degraded by adding a lesser paid volunteer, what makes you believe there is no degradation in performance by hiring a lesser paid firefighter?

I guess that is more hearsay on my part, including the quote from the B/C who said, after working with them on strike teams, that there was no difference from the volunteer firefighters in Sierra Madre and career professionals. You can take up this issue with them (LA Area Fire Chiefs and the B/C from El Monte, not me. But your strategy has been consistent, if not illogical in most cases, to condem the messenger and avoid real debate. It must be hard to pretend not to address the advocacy from other members of the fire service.

Hearsay has been the crux of your arguments. Remember who was accusing a now identified Pasadena City Councilman of comitting a federal crime. You have been asked several times to link or source your claims. You've yet to do it. You've put forth hearsay as fact on several occasions asking us to believe it unequivocally. Maybe that worked when you were a police chief. It isn't how policy makers or those supporting them work when hard decisions are being made. You claim I criticize the messenger and avoid real debate. That is not true. What I have done is counter your arguments (easily I might add) and demanded validity to the hearsay claims you have made on more than one occasion. I've caught you exaggerating once and you've yet to respond in other cases. It is becoming more apparent you are not used to being challenged and are becoming more frustrated when your claims are found to be untrue.

You are now stating that I advocate for all volunteer firefighters, and this isn't the first time that you have made such an unsubstantiated claim, but I understand how important it is for you to maintain the status quo.

Only because you continually put forth this idea as a viable model, when it has proven to be both costly and unreliable. Maintaing the status quo is important to me because that same status quo ensures I am working with the best qualfied, and best trained individuals available. Your model doesn't guarantee either of those traits. You have also mentioned anecdotes on more than one occasion that imply the entire group is dysfunctional. I.E. The comments about drinking and sexual behavior while on duty. I won't deny those events haven't happened. But it certainly is not indicative of the entire group. Your comments never differentiate that difference.

Any fire department that operates with a partial reserve crew and puts value on their participation has had no problem with recruiting and maintaining the ranks, especially when they become the primary labor force for appointment to career positions. The fly in the ointment is the union that wants to protect the huge overtime largesse they get each year. The LA Area Fire Chiefs hit the nail on the head when they said that firefighters who work a lot of overtime become financially addicted. Is there any reason to doubt why reserve programs don't fare well when the regulars have become "addicted" -- LA Area Fire Chiefs words, not mine -- to the overtime and would be threatened if their department adopted a reserve program to cover runaway position coverage overtime costs.

Your model would only allow those participating in the reserve program to ultimately acquire full time positions. If that isn't ethe case it would negate an individual's motivation for staying a reserve for any length time adding to the already extraordinary indirect cost of training an entirely new workforce every three years. It would also exclude many otherwise well qualfied candidates who would not be able to pariticipate due to financial or personal obligations. Imagine what police forces would be like if they were only able to draw from individuals who had worked for private security firms or who were MP's in the military. That is what you are advocating. I on the other hand want to be able to draw from as wide a cross section as possible to ensure the best qualified are chosen from the widest cross section of society. My experience with reserve forces are individuals who are either very young living at home with their parents or individuals who are married to a very patient spouse capable of supporting that individual's career path. I'd rather have someone who has shown some personal achievement and responsibility in their lives. I especially value individuals who have had occupations dealing with the general public. One of the best firefighters that ever worked for me was a barista at a local coffee shop in the Alhambra area. Aside from knowing and doing his job he had some of the best people skills. Contrary. One of the worst firefighters I had was a Fire Tech grad from Rio Hondo College. Lived at home till he got hired by the LAFD. Had an entitlement mentality. His first couple months of probation were very touch and go because he lacked any real team oriented training. He passed probation. But not before there were some serious discussions about his performance and behavior.

As far as addiction to "overtime" pay. I think you'll find more than a couple of your law enforcement colleagues who are in similar straits. I know several. Please refrain in the future from trying to characterize this as solely an FD issue.

******************************************************************************************************************************************

Comment #46: By Bruce Philpott Regarding Comment #45 by LA Firefighter

LA Firefighter, you may have forgotten when reading the material that the recommendation to build a reserve fire corps came from the LA Area Fire Chiefs. If they had a concern with performance, they would have made the cautionary notations in the document. But the fire chiefs know very well that assigning one state-certified firefighter working as a volunteer or reserve to a three person engine company does not compromise the crew’s ability to perform any task. Just like a reserve police officer riding with a regular, except with the fire model, there is a ratio of 3 to 1; with the two person patrol, the ratio is 1 to 1. I guess that is more hearsay on my part, including the quote from the B/C who said, after working with them on strike teams, that there was no difference from the volunteer firefighters in Sierra Madre and career professionals. You can take up this issue with them (LA Area Fire Chiefs and the B/C from El Monte, not me). But your strategy has been consistent, if not illogical in most cases, to condemn the messenger and avoid real debate. It must be hard to pretend not to address the advocacy from other members of the fire service.

******************************************************************************************************************************************

Comment #45: Comments regarding Bruce Philpott's presentation to the Glendale City Council advocating an enhanced firefighter reserve program.

Bruce, I always enjoy getting notifications from Hal that you have either responded to my dialogue or that you have made yet another scurrilous attack upon the Glendale Fire Department and firefighters in general.

What a surprise you advocate replacing a highly trained professional for a reserve willing to work at an undetermined lesser value. It says two things. First is that you place no value upon the duties of responsibilities of firefighters. Second, that you believe being a firefighter is of little value. If this reserve model is such a good idea for public safety, why haven't police departments utilized this concept to put two officers in every patrol car? The majority of police work is arriving after an incident has occurred and writing a report that may or may not stand up to legal scrutiny. It only stands to reason your willingness to diminish the value of a firefighter should be extended to those groups as well. Why not have volunteer chiefs as well running the city departments? Both fire and police. It isn't a great leap of logic to find individuals willing to take on those positions for less money than what is currently paid for those positions. For example. The Glendale Galleria hires security personnel for a fraction of what a police officer costs the city. Why shouldn't the city hire those individuals to replace their law enforcement personnel? Given the crime rate at the Galleria I would say those lesser paid individuals are doing a pretty good job.

That being said let's get to the crux of your argument. You advocate using reserve firefighters based upon recommendations from your mythical Career Firefighter Study Group whom you refuse to identify. One question that comes to mind. Were there any individuals on the group that are currently firefighters working in the station running calls to the public? Somehow I doubt it. I have spoken to my colleague who works for the Orange County FD. You may or may not know, the OCFD is a combination department utilizing both career and reserve firefighters. My colleague informs me there are significant issues with the level of training involved with this group. First is the direct cost of paying them their stipends when they respond to calls. An odd concept since they claim to be "volunteering" their time. I've done volunteer work and never received a dime for my effort. I've received "thank you's" which is more than I expected. But these firefighters receive stipends. So there is that direct cost. Then comes the indirect cost. The equipping and training of these individuals. There are dedicated individuals within the organization (training, payroll, mechanics, and supply personnel) whose sole function is to support the program. Then comes the real kicker in the business model. What is the current turnover in the program you propose? Have you studied other reserve programs? My OCFD colleague tells me they experience about an average of 30% turnover every year. Those costs also need to be factored into your financial calculations. And last but not least is the reliability factor of an individual working in that capacity. There have been significant numbers of news articles written (I sent several of them to you) detailing that demographic shifts within American society make it more difficult for reserves to respond during the daytime due to the reality that fewer and fewer individuals actually work and live in the same community.

My colleague in Orange County told me if you actually believe that reserves can provide the same level of service as dedicated professionals you need to come on down to Orange County and visit a neighborhood where you would fit right in. It's called FANTASYSLAND. Sorry, that was his comment and I couldn't resist.

You make this statement;

The relationship between the fire union and the contributions made in election campaigns to city council members often assures which of the two entities exercises more political power. Quite often, fire chiefs take stock of this reality and simply go along with the system.

First you imply that local elected leaders are being corrupted by a fire union's political involvement. I'm sure those individuals are happy to know you imply or accuse them of impropriety. Remember, earlier in our conversations you accused a city council member of violating a federal law. You later recanted, but only after realizing someone (me) had called for the validity of your statements causing you to research its accuracy. Secondly, I bet fire chiefs everywhere must be taking great solace in knowing you view them as incapable leaders. They are the recognized experts in what is needed to properly protect their communities, not you. Your comments about their inability to enact the models you put forth are more indicative of how they perceive your ideas as opposed to the validity of your ideas. I'm sure they are polite in their interaction with you, but have no intention of adopting ideas that would put their communities at risk. Which is what you propose.

******************************************************************************************************************************************

Comment #44: Response by LA Firefighter to Comment #43 by Bruce Philpott

I cited the publication that contained his study and conclusions by giving you the organization that produced the article, including the date it was published. Again, the article appeared in the January 1993 publication of the Public Management Magazine of the International City Managers Association. It was titled, "Crew Size and Deaths or Injuries Are Debated". His second article was published by the same organization in its December, 1995 publication, titled, "Facts and Figures Tell the True Story". If you want, I will be happy to send you a copy of each article. Since they were published in 1993/95, it might not have gotten into Google content. But I have the documents and would be pleased to send them to you. Just give me a mailing address. I will also be happy to send you copies of the document that proves the Pasadena fire union was conducting a reelection campaign out of one of the fire stations while union members were working on-duty and that there were no consequences, as in discipline, given.

So you have a study done almost 15 years ago. Great. What a surprise you cite a single study supported by the ICMA as the basis of your study. I'm sure I could find more recent data from sources than those not supported by the ICMA that prove my point as well. We're going round in circles. The political issue in Pasadena has already been discussed. The powers that be determined the appropriate action. You seemed obsessed over this event. Why?

I can also point to where some fire stations in San Francisco and Sacramento were recently caught having drunken and or sex parties in their stations while on duty.

And what's your point? Do you really want to open the door on the abuses that occur within city departments. Do you want to go down the road of abuses by law enforcement personnel? Remember I work in LA. The LAPD has had scandal after scandal regarding its law enforcement personnel. As has the LASD. You may not know this, but the current sheriff in Orange County is currently under federal indictment. What is your point here other than to try and draw a conclusion of an entire group based upon the actions of a few? If I follow your logic in this statement, I can thusly conclude that all police chiefs and county sheriffs are corrupt and should be investigated by the Feds.

I don't care to undermine one set of fire delivery systems over others. Each system, in anecdotal stories, can make a lot of claims. The reality is that most volunteer fire departments are volunteer because the people in those communities cannot afford to have career firefighters on-duty around the clock.

Yet you do exactly that in your previous statements. Which is it? Are you interested in having a discussion of delivery systems, or are you wanting to compare the negatives of a group based upon the anecdotes of individuals?

The fact that some career fire departments have lower ratings than some all-volunteer departments is not an issue. In the context of our discussion, we are talking about the Los Angeles region where there are more fire resources that can be assembled quickly and efficiently than anywhere else in the entire country. No one has to wait for resources to arrive in southern California. We have the most abundant fire resources in the entire country and can assemble hundreds in short order.

And you also know that the LA area is one of the least equipped areas in the nation in terms of its staffing per capita. Your ideas only want to reduce and diminish that capability. If natural disasters and manmade events prove anything to anyone (except you apparently) it is how easily the system is overloaded.

Regarding the insurance issue, there are limits on the cost of coverage of any kind of insurance, beyond which no one but the real wealthy can afford. It would also be better crime insurance for a police officer to be on every street corner. This would bring criminal behavior to a complete halt, but the public cannot afford that level of insurance. Same thing applies to fire protection. There is no problem with the fire resource capability to bring all the manpower needed at a large fire or disaster in just minutes, even if every engine company were staffed with three.

This level of protection is not affordable to who? What do you base that upon? The cities that do have staffing levels you claim are not affordable haven't gone away. Your statement is once again not supported by any facts.

These deaths, according to the reporting criteria for deaths that occur on the fire ground are, in fact, included in the fatalities that are listed as fire ground related deaths. Any death that occurs within the first 24 hours of a fire ground operation is presumed to be linked to the fire event. Also, one of the major factors why firefighters experience respiratory injuries, according to the literature that I read, is due to the fact that they failed to put their breathing apparatus on before they came into contact with the hazardous gas or particles. Also, according to all of the fatality documents that I have read over the past several years, 80% of "fire ground" deaths are due to heart attacks and vehicle accidents. The heat attacks were the result of the individuals being in poor physical condition. I am very pleased to see that most departments have begun to initiate specific physical fitness conditioning, with benchmarks and testing. Even though the unions have fought these policies and city management has had to give additional benefit concessions, this will do more to reduce firefighter fatalities at structure fires than anything else.

Do you ever get tired of making things up? Our union fully supported a Wellness program. It was the department who fought the program because the City Manager and Risk Management were afraid of doing baseline physicals and discovering maladies that might be used as future claims against the city. Now the program is on board there is a real savings being discovered in both medical retirements due to poor physical condition and more importantly worker's comp claims.

I agree that he is not any less dead. But, I also know the language contained in the state compensation laws for public safety officers. It says the language, "shall be liberally interpreted". This means that any firefighter who has been a chain smoker for his entire adult life and who dies of lung cancer even though he only fought two large structure fires his entire career, both with self contained breathing equipment, is presumed to be work related and his surviving spouse will get full pension benefits. No other occupation gets those benefits and many other occupations, as has been discussed earlier, are far more hazardous than working for a fire department.

And I have yet to see the city not contest a cancer presumptive claim. I linked a study that shows firefighters are diagnosed with various forms of cancers far greater than the general population. You cite one hypothetical anecdote and try to imply it is the norm. While you state the language acknowledges that circumstances can be used "liberally" that is typically not the case.

I arrested a burglar in an exclusive Linda Vista hills neighborhood overlooking the Rose Bowl in Pasadena when I was a young patrol officer. We kept getting burglary reports of residential homes over the previous several weeks. That day I contacted a next-door neighbor to one of the burglaries. She gave me the description of a car she saw on the street that was not previously known to her. I began looking for a similar car and that afternoon I spotted one. The driver, a professional looking man in a business suit, smiled and waived at me as he was walking across the street. I made contact, got his identification and called his employer number he had given me on his business card to confirm his employment. Everything looked right and just as I was ready to let him go and apologize for inconveniencing him, I noticed a Los Angeles County seal on a business card he had in his wallet. It became visible when he put his drivers license away. That county seal was known to me to be from the LA County Probation Department. That caused me to look further and I found the largesse from his latest burglary in his car. He was a career burglar of high-end homes and he went back to prison. I was also able to return stolen property to the victims.

And? You didn't prevent any of the crimes he committed through good police work, or by your presence on the street. You got lucky. For all you know he might have been through committing B & E's. In which case you wouldn't have prevented anything.

These anecdotal stories are so numerous I cannot believe that you believe police officers are not productive when they are on patrol. How do you think stolen cars are recovered and suspects taken into custody? Patrol officers spot the stolen cars while patrolling, and make arrests everyday in Los Angeles. Traffic enforcement is another element of their value while on patrol.

My observation of police over the years of the types of incidents you mention are typically due to citizen reports and complaints. I rarely see law enforcement officers pulling people off the streets to take them into custody. In fact I am more concerned that cops are trying to look more like Navy SEALS in their appearance of dressing like commandos. Given how many times I have been passed by speeders or cutoff and almost been hit by people running red lights and stop signs I would have to say traffic enforcement is not as effective as you want to believe.

This is the second time you made this statement. It must be real important for you to try and establish that police patrols do not benefit the public because you fear that the same example can be applied to the fire service. In actuality, police officers make arrests everyday before and during the commission of crimes. Their on-view arrests and related activities weigh heavily in their annual performance review. How many teenagers alter their intent to shoplift when they see the uniform police officer in a black and white patrol car just before going into the store. A reminder to self-examine the consequences of their intended acts. I can attest to that because I once was one of those teenagers.

I don't have to establish anything. The reality is the majority of police work involves taking a report after a crime has occurred. The happenstance of a police officer stopping a crime in progress is rare to the point of being statistically insignificant.

That would be the same rhetoric the police would use if they worked 24-hour shifts that allowed them eight hours for sleep and at least another ten hours for leisure. They would drive out of their enclosed district police stations with red lights and siren, race to the call, handle it and return to the compound that separates them from the citizenry. But because they work eight, ten and twelve hour shifts, they have no need for beds, kitchens and leisure rooms. Besides, the public wouldn't permit it. And they have the capability to assign their resources proportionately to the fluctuations of calls that spread out over a 24-hour period. They know that when people are normally awake, calls go up. When the public is generally asleep, they also know that the call demand declines significantly and they can staff with fewer numbers, even though some major event could occur anytime. That is known in your business as risk assessment and insurance, but the fire service, to the detriment of the public, doesn't use and data in determining staffing across the 24-hour spectrum. Insurance services and law enforcement place a lot of weight on event probabilities. When a rare event demands more police resources than it has on-duty, the mutual aid system is immediately activated and other law enforcement agencies respond. That is the way it has worked for the last four decades. I can personally attest to that fact. The fire service has chosen not to set a realistic schedule of its resources based upon actual call data it has at its fingertips. I've discovered it doesn't want to know because the existing system serves their own particular needs.

So you now believe that having firefighter asleep in the stations is not cost effective. I am not sure but you would like to see firefighters put on a 40 hour work week or something to that effect. If that is the case go right ahead. It will only require the city to hire an additional third of the workforce in order to ensure those hours are covered. Of the many reasons firefighters work 24 hour shifts is the simple reason it is the most cost effective. And once again you reveal your visceral hatred of firefighters. You state the public wouldn't permit police activity to mirror the routine of firefighters who work 24 hour shifts. If I had a nickel for every time I've gone into the dayroom of our station in the middle of the night and discovered a police officer sleeping in one of the recliners I wouldn't need to wait several years, I could retire now. I could draw an analogy like yours where you paint an entire group with a broad brush based upon the actions of a few but I won't.

Are you implying that city employees who do landscape maintenance want to be able to increase their workload so they can go to each of the nine fire stations in Glendale each week and cut the grass and pull weeds? As I stated the first time, the city contracts out to a private landscape company for $35,000 per year to mow the lawns and pull weeds. As I have also mentioned that after I conducted an audit of the busiest fire station in the city of Glendale, they still have about 85% of their time documented as standby. The answer is that they have become spoiled and refuse to mow the small clumps of grass in front of the fire stations even though they have all of the time to accomplish that function. I have spoken with the recently retired fire chief, Chris Gray and he has acknowledged that firefighters at each of the nine stations has adequate time to do grounds maintenance. After 4 or 5 PM, each station shuts down business operations and goes into a standby mode waiting for calls. Maybe the firefighters see themselves, as being above the function of grounds maintenance but this is a relatively new phenomenon. I understand that you would rather watch Monday night football on the big screen rather than mow the lawn. After all it's a mere $35,000 contract per year. But when the public drives past a fire station and sees three men trimming shrubs, mowing the lawn and sweeping the driveway, and knowing there are four non-productive firemen inside the station who are receiving a full-cost burden package of $200,000 per year, don't they have a right to expect a little more from them to keep costs down.

I don't pretend to know the motivations of the city employees who do landscaping maintenance. I do know your rhetoric of "spoiled" firefighters is more revealing about you and your lack of respect for the occupation of being a firefighter. That is becoming more and more apparent as our discussion has evolved. The public has a right to service from their firefighters as it is determined by the policy makers that are elected by them. Has it occurred to you the public views firefighters sitting in the station waiting to respond as being "productive?"

You may have forgotten that I commanded a support division of the Pasadena Fire Department for several years. During that time I spent many mornings and afternoons at one or more of the eight fire stations. I also have done a pretty thorough audit of the Glendale Fire Department. And, I have spent numerous hours with fire chiefs from many different small and medium sized departments. Unless something extraordinary has occurred, daily maintenance takes about an hour at most. Remember there are four men on-duty, so in one hour, four man hours are expended toward this activity. According to the Glendale Fire Department's activity logs, each station averages less than one-half of an inspection per shift and it takes about twenty minutes per inspection. You make the claim that your company is busy every minute of every day doing all of the activities that you cite. This is not consistent with any auditing I have done. When you mention participating in "school programs, PR events for local city groups", I have studied this and have found that although these events don't occur every day as you claim, when they do occur, they often take the engine company out of service or degrade its ability to response to the next emergency call. Having fifteen elementary school children crawling all over the apparatus and displaying the power of the water stream from the nozzle and extending the hose away from the engine, is entertaining to the children, but it obstructs your ability to get to that next emergency call. It could be a heart attack or stroke and the extra minutes taking to get your engine company back to response mode can make the difference between life and death.

You commanded the Support Division. Outstanding. So you know all about ordering the toilet paper and other station supplies. You spent many a morning and afternoon at the stations doing what exactly? Once again you cite discussions with unnamed individuals to bolster a belief that is not proven by any type of actual experience. I've done several ride alongs with police officers and haven't done anything more significant than determine how much cream to put in my coffee. I also sent my kids to space camp. Using your logic they are now qualified to be astronauts. Despite your claims of what usually happens during a station routine I can assure you and the others reading this that isn't the case. I won't speak to the Glendale FD since I am unfamiliar with its activities. I do know in the LAFD and other departments where I know personnel the PR and prevention activities never preclude us from responding since we are available to respond. I can only speak to my crew in that our ability to respond quickly due to entertaining children (as you put it) isn't compromised. Once again you make claims based on minimal experience or lack of direct knowledge.

Why don't you give me the number of your fire station and I will audit your activity logs and let you know just how busy you are on runs, maintenance, school programs, PR events, and inspections each shift. You also fail to mention that by the time you shut down at 5 PM, the rest of the shift is devoted to standby only, waiting for the next call, which may or may not come for the remainder of the shift. The exception to not having any other responsibilities after 5 PM is that you probably have to comply with your department's policy that requires you to conduct several nighttime training activities per year. That seems to be universal in the fire service.

Why don't you do a public records request for all the LAFD stations and figure out which one is mine? I'm not about to do any of your work for you. Though I give you credit for asking.

I am glad that you finally stated this in writing. Before now you were not able to admit that elective policies such as allowing firefighters on engine companies to jog in remote areas or out of their fire district entirely posed any problem with degrading response times. You had previously said that you had confidence in the fire chief in this regard. Common sense dictates that the Best Practice (words coming from the fire culture) is geographic integrity (another fire culture phrase) at its finest and provides the public with the best possible opportunity to receive geographic equity in emergency response times. I still can't understand why the Glendale Fire Department continues to reject this universally accepted premise.

Not a true statement. I've stated several times in our past discussion if this in fact occurring it is a leadership issue that should be addressed by the chief of the department if it is in fact true. I am surprised you have forgotten this so quickly. I am troubled by your admission you have forgotten the content of our recent discussions.

Your next response addresses the issue of how difficult it is for the OCFD to maintain the reserve component. This is the typical response that I read about. The problem with a reserve component in an otherwise paid, career fire department is that the paid guys, both union and management, can see the overtime opportunities if they could just get rid of the reserves. They have been successful and the motivation is transparent. In the fire departments that have viable and effective reserve programs, the reserves are given incentives and are told in different ways how much they are appreciated.

My colleague in the OCFD tells me this is blatantly false. The reserve component doesn't affect the overtime issue since the professional units are staffed regardless of whether or not the reserves respond. Once again you make a claim with no factual basis other than your own speculation. You then go on to impugn the management of the department as being part and parcel to this activity. I have sent you information regarding the difficulty of FD's recruiting and retaining reserves. That problem is not isolated to Orange County but endemic nationwide.

I never addressed the issue of firefighter or police injuries. I only addressed the issue of national statistics on occupational fatalities. I do know, however, that the IAFF, in order to counter the relatively low fatality statistics for firefighters, put the word out nationally to its membership to file injury reports for any kind of injury, perceived or real. Their effort has paid off. The report of firefighter injuries has gone way up. Regarding the pay issue, I have never advocated for reductions in pay or benefits for firefighters. If I have, please show me where.

Once again you now make claims that firefighters filed perceived injury reports. Do you have substantive proof of this happening? Like your mythical example of a City Councilman requesting campaign contributions using public facilities you make a statement of illegality. If you have some type of proof to bolster that claim please submit it for the rest of us to review. Otherwise it is once again another made up anecdote to slander an entire group.

I don't believe the other components of the criminal justice system would permit such a deviation from accountability. Isn't that the problem now with the private military operations being conducted under contract with Blackwater in Iraq? I did, however, read today in the Los Angeles Times that several privately owned fire crews from Montana and Idaho were being sent to southern California in case the Santa Ana's were going to start to whip up again.

What you believe isn't important. Accountability could easily be written into the contract language. The problem with Blackwater as I see it is they are being allowed to act without any meaningful oversight. Since they are functioning in a foreign country with a hostile populace the comparison to a private entity functioning in an American city is a non sequitur.

The IAFF was asked at a Cal/OSHA study session before it adopted the Fed/OSHA rule of the 2 in, 2 out system of making entry into a structure fire in 1996. They were asked by one of the Cal/OSHA commissioners to come back with data that showed where firefighters died when they made entry with less than four firefighters on the initial entry team, as they had done for decades. I checked back several weeks later with the OSHA staff person and he sent me the material the IAFF gave him. There were three and all were major incidents in east coast cities where commercial buildings were fully engulfed. Each event resulted in several firefighter deaths. Either a portion of the buildings collapsed on them or the flooring gave way. The investigations concluded that they should not have been where they were, that there were at least 75 firefighters on the fire ground, and they had nothing to do with the number involved on the initial entry team. The report also stated that it was chaotic and there was a breakdown in command.

I am sure you read the investigative reports with a completely unbiased perspective. Something you haven't shown in our discussions.

You may remember right after 9/11, during the recovery phase, large numbers of firefighters amassed at ground zero. This, of course, was understandable because they wanted to make every reasonable effort to find victims in the rubble, and many of those victims were members of their fire family. But after the first several days had passed, Fed/OSHA stepped in and advised the commander of the recovery operations that there were too many firefighters involved and that they were posing an extra risk to the safety of all of the other workers at ground zero, including other firefighters. This is a case where too many can actually pose a greater risk than if there were less.

Firefighters were involved and stayed involved because of the shabby way the remains of both firefighter and civilian victims were being treated. I guess you wouldn't mind if your law enforcement colleagues were just scooped up and tossed into the bed of a truck with a skip loader but we in the fire community have respect for those who made the ultimate sacrifice. You want to believe that too many firefighters at the WTC resulted in unneeded firefighter deaths. This is remarkable logic. I on the other hand believe those who ran in while everyone else (including the cops) were running out were directly responsible for saving almost 90% of those who were in the WTC below the impact zone.

I agree with your statement. I have never advocated for an all-volunteer fire department for cities such as Los Angeles or Glendale. It would never work. Why have you assumed that I advocated for such a staffing system?

Because of your previous statements regarding ISO ratings and the number of volunteer departments with Class 1 ratings. You open a line of inquiry.

I agree with you that it is important to look at performance details, because it can identify areas for improvement. In that regard, I noted in the ISO website that cities with Class 2, 3 & 4 PPC ratings outperformed Class 1 cities. Sierra Madre is a Class 4 city. You may want to visit this document at

www.iso.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=998&Itemid=1089 .

ISO attempts to rationalize why Class 1 cities did so poorly by stating that because there are only 43 cities in the country with that ranking, "the data sample for Class 1 is not statistically credible.

Perhaps one of the reasons why Sierra Madre outperformed a Class 1 city is because hardly anyone lives there and rarely does anything happen. Also, I have spoken to colleagues in surrounding cities and they inform me there are significant mutual aid agreements with the surrounding communities to assist when the Sierra Madre volunteers don't respond (which happens) or something occurs that overwhelms their immediate resources.

I never said that the firefighter whose function it is on the first arriving engine company to connect the hose to the hydrant and then wait for instructions to activate the water stream is fixed during the duration of the event. But you admitted that it takes a minute or so for him to wait for the instructions to turn on the water supply. He cannot do that until others have completed their responsibilities at the fire scene. This takes several minutes. It takes about two minutes for the second engine to arrive along with the truck company. Once those resources are in place, the entry came be made. At least that is what OES, OSHA, NFPA, IAFF, CSFA and, yes, your own department says. I asked Brian Humphries last week about this and he said the exact same thing that all of the others said. He said the LAFD, like the NFPA, has a policy that requires the engineer to remain at the pump controls to assure steady flow of water. If you disagree, perhaps you should take it up with your superiors in your own department and with people who have assistant chief and director titles at the state and federal fire agencies I cited above. Also, I spoke with Gary Giacomo, editor for the California State Firefighters Association. He also said that a four-person engine company is not capable of mounting an interior attack on a structure fire until the second engine has arrived.

Do yourself a favor. You have no clue about the actual happenings of fireground operations. You stated earlier:

One firefighter has to standby the hydrant, and the engineer, being classified as a heavy equipment operator, must remain at the pump controls.

Your statement implies that a firefighter stays at the hydrant after the line is charged. That isn't even remotely true. Here's another fact you don't mention (or don't know) regarding fireground operations. There are times when I instruct the AO to secure his own water supply while I do a size up and the firefighters prepare to make entry. Your statements about fireground operations only reinforce that you have no idea what actually happens during that type of incident. My favorite being this one in a previous response:

As I pointed out before, they die on the fire ground not because there are three on the crew, but because they became disoriented and lose their judgment or bearings when fifty or more of them are massed at large structure fires.

Aside from your many talents, you are also a psychic that can analyze the inner workings of a firefighter's mindset during a structure response. A friend of mine once told me the truly great comedy writes itself. I am beginning to understand what he meant.

I don't know the context of Brian's statements since I don't know the context in which the question was asked. Brian is very much aware that an Apparatus Operator is quite capable of leaving the pump panel to assist in the rescue effort if needed. My AO knows I expect this of him. I doubt anyone would fault my decision to utilize him in that capacity if needed.

They all uniformly agree that it is not possible to mount a four person entry team with the first arriving engine company even if it is staffed with four. But they all admitted it is possible if both of the first two arriving engines were staffed with three. Maybe you have information they don't. Since I am always trying to learn as much as I can, perhaps you could edify me where they are wrong.

I can only tell you what directives we have been given from our department on how to function within the guidelines of NFPA 1710. I can assure you I am within those guidelines and I am quite capable of making entry into a burning structure with my FOUR person engine company.

Already answered the question.

What would happen if the attack hose broke or the motor on the engine overheated and stalled? Your entry team would immediately loose water pressure and be placed at an unnecessary risk, because the engineer would not be able to make the adjustments and corrections to guarantee the water supply.

You can throw out "what if" scenarios all day long. It is pointless to debate the nearly infinite permutations that are possible. I do know that I am quite ready to utilize my AO to effect rescue of a downed colleague.

Or did you make entry with just a three-person entry team? You appear to be in violation of your own department policy and those who speak for the fire industry, including your own state and federal union. Are OSHA, the State Office of Emergency Services, and the NFPA all incorrect as well? Also, what about your command duties at the fire? Don't you need to access the developing situation and make sure that the incoming resources are going to be deployed to maximize their value?

How about you let me decide if I am in violation of my department's policy. I can assure you that isn't the case.

On the other hand, I agree with you that those kinds of decisions -- to make entry to extinguish a fire -- should not be dictated by gray haired commissioners from far away who have no idea about fire operations and the experience firefighters bring to a single event (Such as yourself?). You have a lot of experience and you should have the flexibility to evaluate a particular situation and make decisions about how to attack and extinguish a structure fire based upon many factors, but predominated by safety to your team. If safety standards are met, you should have the ability to engage the fire regardless of how many are present, so long as you exercise prudence and caution. This whole problem rests at the doorstep of the IAFF. They orchestrated this four-person entry team in 1996 in a meeting with an Assistant Secretary of Labor. I spoke with a person who was in the room at the time and he could not believe what he saw and heard. I spoke directly to this person who at the time was chief counsel for a state OSHA. If you notice, the language of the 2 in, 2 out rule, is squeezed between two paragraphs of the respiratory standard act that was being updated and was put there under the IAFF's threat of not endorsing President Clinton's run for his second term. It took the assistant labor secretary twenty-four hours to see that the 2 in, 2 out rule was placed in the non-sequitur respiratory standards. This, according to the chief counsel was an illegal act because there were no public hearings, and it is still technically illegal today, although no one has raised the issue.

I am grateful that someone has been able to mandate a standard that allows for the staffing level I currently enjoy in my service to the citizens of LA. Once again you claim an anonymous source who claims to know about a mysterious claim of quasi blackmail. Do you ever grow weary of conspiracy theory? This is getting old. If it is truly illegal as you claim, what is stopping you from being that person to raise the issue and get the regulation dismissed as being illegal?

There are others, but I will cite two. Pasadena Fire Captain John Tennant, who at the time was the president of the Pasadena Firefighters' Union, made the quotes. Quote # 1: "State labor regulations require that at least two firefighters enter a burning structure for a rescue effort or to attempt to put a fire out, with at least two firefighters standing by outside – a condition that can't be met with only three firefighters assigned to the first company arriving at a fire." In the same article and in response to the fire union president's statement, (Pasadena) City Councilman, Paul Little, stated, "An extra firefighter seems to make sense to me. As I understand it, with a three- person truck (meaning engine), they can get there, but can't really do much until a four (sic) person is available. In the event of catastrophic fire, a truck getting there and not being able to effect a rescue would be a disaster." The article was published in the Los Angeles Times, San Gabriel Valley Edition, on May 28, 1996.

What's your point? The rescue effort is for the rescue of a firefighter colleague, not a civilian.

It might be of interest to readers that the city councilman who made the above quote was the same city councilman who made the call to the Pasadena fire union president and directly asked him to deposit two-thousand dollars into his (councilman) reelection campaign account, to which the fire union president complied that same afternoon. His campaign manager at the time and who witnessed the phone call is prepared to stand before any person or group, including the press, and make the same statement. It may not be illegal, but it is unethical.

Is this one you claimed earlier made the call from his City Council office? I bet he's now pleased as punch to know you've been running around telling people he was doing something illegal. Are you saying that politicians who run for office shouldn't be allowed to call campaign supporters asking for contributions? Have you ever read a document called the US Constitution? There is a very special part called the 1^st Amendment. You may want to reread it (since it is obvious you've forgotten) and review how it applies to campaign finance. How is it unethical? Because you say so? You clearly have no idea how politics works. Because if you did you'd know that politicos call supporters all the time asking for donations to fund campaigns and offset campaign debt. Once again you stray from your point. What does campaign finance have to do with four person staffing?

The second quote was taken from an article published in the Pasadena Weekly on May 17, 1996. Union president John Tennant gave the same exact quote as the one that was published in the Pasadena Star News. I have copies of each article and will forward them to you via the system you requested.

I already responded to this point earlier.

Pasadena fire management at the time was not without culpability in perpetuating the myth. In a written response to an independent audit firm that recommended continued staffing with three on two engine companies that each had less than one call per shift, Pasadena fire management responded, "We do not agree with the Audit Team's recommendation that the two west side stations continue to be staffed with three personnel. As noted by the Audit Team, the recent Cal/OSHA 'two in/two/out' ruling requires four firefighters at the fire scene before rescue operations can be undertaken. This means that before two firefighters can enter a structure to effect a rescue or fire extinguishments (they never go in alone), two other firefighters must be on scene, ready to assist if needed. To provide this coverage would require one additional firefighter assigned to both Engine # 38 and Engine # 39, or wait until additional units arrive at the scene, which would delay rescue or extinguishments." I have a copy of this also if you would like to see it.

All that is true to effect rescue of a downed firefighter colleague. We both agree there is an exception for civilians. The logic is that if one firefighter is in alone and is disabled his (or her) partner can secure rescue. If both are disabled at the same time one individual will not be able to rescue both simultaneously. I am surprised no one has ever explained this to you.

Pasadena's fire management and union were complicit in presenting the false claim that in order to mount a rescue they must have four firefighters. They knew full well of the exemption cited in both OSHA and NFPA standards. I must say, however, that at the time fire management made this erroneous statement, they had an interim chief who was easily intimidated and influenced by the union president. This union president, John Tennant, was second or third in command at the state union level at the time and soon after was appointed by then Governor Gray Davis to become State Fire Marshal. It was well understood who ran the Pasadena Fire Department at the time. Tennant moved his union office in next to the fire chief's, paid for by the taxpayers and basically ran the department from there. He placed himself on administrative leave from his engine company and spent his full time running the department and the affairs of the CSFA (the state fire union).

Already discussed that the claim isn't false. No need to explain further. I do not know about the particulars regarding Tenant's appointment. Nor do I interest myself in those matters. If Governor Davis appointed him I am sure there was a very good reason. Tenant's stature in the state union levels are of little interest to me as well. You sound more angry that someone you combated achieved a higher recognition than yourself. Given your propensity for exaggeration and outright fantasy it's easy to understand.

The interim chief, Pete Peterson, also knew the truth of the rescue and false claim that four on the first engine can mount an interior attack if staffed with four, and failed to live up to his ethical responsibilities expected by the public. He was called on this issue and resigned not long after knowing that a citizen group was preparing to expose his malfeasance.

Yet another lone gunman behind the grassy knoll. I never cease to be amazed to read yet another one of your conspiracy theories. I have to ask rhetorically about your credentials in law enforcement given how much of your dialogue involves rumor, hearsay, or speculation. Did you ever make an arrest that led to a conviction? Or one that was overturned? Your ability to provide proof of the malfeasance you claim is troubling to me for a person who claims to have done thorough research on a topic they know nothing about.

******************************************************************************************************************************************

Comment # 43: Response by Bruce Philpott to Comment # 41 by LA Firefighter

“I did a Google search on Joe Erwin looking for this study you claim he performed that details the efficiency of three vs four person staffing. Can’t find it. I am sure you can link to your factual content for further review.”

I cited the publication that contained his study and conclusions by giving you the organization that produced the article, including the date it was published. Again, the article appeared in the January 1993 publication of the Public Management Magazine of the International City Managers Association. It was titled, “Crew Size and Deaths or Injuries Are Debated”. His second article was published by the same organization in its December, 1995 publication, titled, “Facts and Figures Tell the True Story”. If you want, I will be happy to send you a copy of each article. Since they were published in 1993/95, it might not have gotten into Google content. But I have the documents and would be pleased to send them to you. Just give me a mailing address. I will also be happy to send you copies of the document that proves the Pasadena fire union was conducting a reelection campaign out of one of the fire stations while union members were working on-duty and that there were no consequences, as in discipline, given.

“As I stated earlier, You don’t get to buy insurance only when you need it. When an emergency occurs you need the manpower immediately. Not wait for it to arrive. Or, as in the case of volunteer departments, sometimes not arriving at all.”

Taking your last comment first, some all-volunteer fire departments have been rated by the ISO at higher ratings than most all paid, career fire departments in the country. As you know, only 43 fire departments have the Class I rating in the country and several are all-volunteer departments. I can also point to where some fire stations in San Francisco and Sacramento were recently caught having drunken and or sex parties in their stations while on duty. I don’t care to undermine one set of fire delivery systems over others. Each system, in anecdotal stories, can make a lot of claims. The reality is that most volunteer fire departments are volunteer because the people in those communities cannot afford to have career firefighters on-duty around the clock.

“You seem to believe that only firefighter deaths due to trauma are the only ones that matter. What about the firefighters who collapse later back at the station because he (or she) was unaware of the increased levels of CO in his system as a result of hazardous exposures.”

These deaths, according to the reporting criteria for deaths that occur on the fire ground are, in fact, included in the fatalities that are listed as fire ground related deaths. Any death that occurs within the first 24 hours of a fire ground operation is presumed to be linked to the fire event. Also, one of the major factors why firefighters experience respiratory injuries, according to the literature that I read, is due to the fact that they failed to put their breathing apparatus on before they came into contact with the hazardous gas or particles. Also, according to all of the fatality documents that I have read over the past several years, 80% of “fire ground” deaths are due to heart attacks and vehicle accidents. The heat attacks were the result of the individuals being in poor physical condition. I am very pleased to see that most departments have begun to initiate specific physical fitness conditioning, with benchmarks and testing. Even though the unions have fought these policies and city management has had to give additional benefit concessions, this will do more to reduce firefighter fatalities at structure fires than anything else.

“Is a firefighter who dies years later from cancer less dead than one that has a building that falls on his head? You tell me.”

I agree that he is not any less dead. But, I also know the language contained in the state compensation laws for public safety officers. It says the language, “shall be liberally interpreted”. This means that any firefighter who has been a chain smoker for his entire adult life and who dies of lung cancer even though he only fought two large structure fires his entire career, both with self contained breathing equipment, is presumed to be work related and his surviving spouse will get full pension benefits. No other occupation gets those benefits and many other occupations, as has been discussed earlier, are far more hazardous than working for a fire department.

“Prove to me that an officer on patrol in a patrol car has prevented one crime?”

“Prove to me that an officer on patrol in a patrol car has prevented one crime?

“Once again I have to state that we don’t get to schedule peak staffing because of a scheduled emergency.”

That would be the same rhetoric the police would use if they worked 24-hour shifts that allowed them eight hours for sleep and at least another ten hours for leisure. They would drive out of their enclosed district police stations with red lights and siren, race to the call, handle it and return to the compound that separates them from the citizenry. But because they work eight, ten and twelve hour shifts, they have no need for beds, kitchens and leisure rooms. Besides, the public wouldn’t permit it. And they have the capability to assign their resources proportionately to the fluctuations of calls that spread out over a 24-hour period. They know that when people are normally awake, calls go up. When the public is generally asleep, they also know that the call demand declines significantly and they can staff with fewer numbers, even though some major event could occur anytime. That is known in your business as risk assessment and insurance, but the fire service, to the detriment of the public, doesn’t use and data in determining staffing across the 24-hour spectrum. Insurance services and law enforcement place a lot of weight on event probabilities. When a rare event demands more police resources than it has on-duty, the mutual aid system is immediately activated and other law enforcement agencies respond. That is the way it has worked for the last four decades. I can personally attest to that fact. The fire service has chosen not to set a realistic schedule of its resources based upon actual call data it has at its fingertips. I’ve discovered it doesn’t want to know because the existing system serves their own particular needs.

“Your comments about being spoiled really reveal your true colors. Has it occurred to you there are city departments who might have demanded to do the maintenance work since that is their function? There might also be a possibility the chief of the department believes his firefighters’ time can be spent doing something more productive than mowing the lawn.”

Are you implying that city employees who do landscape maintenance want to be able to increase their workload so they can go to each of the nine fire stations in Glendale each week and cut the grass and pull weeds? As I stated the first time, the city contracts out to a private landscape company for $35,000 per year to mow the lawns and pull weeds. As I have also mentioned that after I conducted an audit of the busiest fire station in the city of Glendale, they still have about 85% of their time documented as standby. The answer is that they have become spoiled and refuse to mow the small clumps of grass in front of the fire stations even though they have all of the time to accomplish that function. I have spoken with the recently retired fire chief, Chris Gray and he has acknowledged that firefighters at each of the nine stations has adequate time to do grounds maintenance. After 4 or 5 PM, each station shuts down business operations and goes into a standby mode waiting for calls. Maybe the firefighters see themselves, as being above the function of grounds maintenance but this is a relatively new phenomenon. I understand that you would rather watch Monday night football on the big screen rather than mow the lawn. After all it’s a mere $35,000 contract per year. But when the public drives past a fire station and sees three men trimming shrubs, mowing the lawn and sweeping the driveway, and knowing there are four non-productive firemen inside the station who are receiving a full-cost burden package of $200,000 per year, don’t they have a right to expect a little more from them to keep costs down.

“You clearly don’t know the routine of the station house. After routine maintenance is done in the morning the afternoon is typically spent doing fire safety inspections, school programs, PR events for local city groups, etc.”

You may have forgotten that I commanded a support division of the Pasadena Fire Department for several years. During that time I spent many mornings and afternoons at one or more of the eight fire stations. I also have done a pretty thorough audit of the Glendale Fire Department. And, I have spent numerous hours with fire chiefs from many different small and medium sized departments. Unless something extraordinary has occurred, daily maintenance takes about an hour at most. Remember there are four men on-duty, so in one hour, four man hours are expended toward this activity. According to the Glendale Fire Department’s activity logs, each station averages less than one-half of an inspection per shift and it takes about twenty minutes per inspection. You make the claim that your company is busy every minute of every day doing all of the activities that you cite. This is not consistent with any auditing I have done. When you mention participating in “school programs, PR events for local city groups”, I have studied this and have found that although these events don’t occur every day as you claim, when they do occur, they often take the engine company out of service or degrade its ability to response to the next emergency call. Having fifteen elementary school children crawling all over the apparatus and displaying the power of the water stream from the nozzle and extending the hose away from the engine, is entertaining to the children, but it obstructs your ability to get to that next emergency call. It could be a heart attack or stroke and the extra minutes taking to get your engine company back to response mode can make the difference between life and death.

Why don’t you give me the number of your fire station and I will audit your activity logs and let you know just how busy you are on runs, maintenance, school programs, PR events, and inspections each shift. You also fail to mention that by the time you shut down at 5 PM, the rest of the shift is devoted to standby only, waiting for the next call, which may or may not come for the remainder of the shift. The exception to not having any other responsibilities after 5 PM is that you probably have to comply with your department’s policy that requires you to conduct several nighttime training activities per year. That seems to be universal in the fire service.

“Having them (engine companies) centrally located ready to respond is the most efficient use of that resource.”

I am glad that you finally stated this in writing. Before now you were not able to admit that elective policies such as allowing firefighters on engine companies to jog in remote areas or out of their fire district entirely posed any problem with degrading response times. You had previously said that you had confidence in the fire chief in this regard. Common sense dictates that the Best Practice (words coming from the fire culture) is geographic integrity (another fire culture phrase) at its finest and provides the public with the best possible opportunity to receive geographic equity in emergency response times. I still can’t understand why the Glendale Fire Department continues to reject this universally accepted premise.

“While you would like everyone to believe that firefighting is almost risk free those same statistics you cite about the lack of injury to firefighters also state there is even less of a risk of injury to law enforcement personnel. Like lateral police officers I know who start in one department and move to another because of compensation. Once again I have to ask why you aren’t demanding that police staffing and pay be reduced accordingly?”

“Then you state there are no private law enforcement entities providing that service to a municipality. Is that not also a tradition that could easily be disregarded in the interest of fiscal responsibility”?

I don’t believe the other components of the criminal justice system would permit such a deviation from accountability. Isn’t that the problem now with the private military operations being conducted under contract with Blackwater in Iraq? I did, however, read today in the Los Angeles Times that several privately owned fire crews from Montana and Idaho were being sent to southern California in case the Santa Ana’s were going to start to whip up again.

“When was the IAFF asked for this data? Despite the mythical study you cite, having more manpower at the scene to reduce injuries is only common sense.”

You may remember right after 9/11, during the recovery phase, large numbers of firefighters amassed at ground zero. This, of course, was understandable because they wanted to make every reasonable effort to find victims in the rubble, and many of those victims were members of their fire family. But after the first several days had passed, Fed/OSHA stepped in and advised the commander of the recovery operations that there were too many firefighters involved and that they were posing an extra risk to the safety of all of the other workers at ground zero, including other firefighters. This is a case where too many can actually pose a greater risk than if there were less.

“In the communities you cited (Class 1 all volunteer fire departments) that model may very well work. Considering that my unit averages over 10 runs per shift in an area larger that the two cities (you cited) I have sincere doubts it would work in the LA area.”

“You brought them (Sierra Madre All-Volunteer Fire Department) into the discussion. That makes their operational ability a subject for further scrutiny.”

www.iso.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=998&Itemid=1089.

ISO attempts to rationalize why Class 1 cities did so poorly by stating that because there are only 43 cities in the country with that ranking, “the data sample for Class 1 is not statistically credible.

“Once again you make statements about firefighter operations in complete ignorance. One firefighter is NOT required to standby the hydrant. Once the connection is made and the line is charged (typically less than a minute) that individual is then free to report to the company officer and team up with the other firefighter (typically advancing the hoselines towards the fire) and make entry. Ventilation is not always necessary. Please restrict your commentary to police operations. It is obvious you have no clue about fireground tactics. Once again you show your true colors by calling the need for increased staffing a “con”. I am glad to know you believe a staffing level that increases firefighter safety and the efficiency of delivering a service to the public a “con”. Thanks.”

“Wrong again. I’ve already shown you have no clue about fireground operations. Four person engines are quite capable of entering burning structures and do it regularly. I did it with my crew not less than a month ago. Your ignorance regarding fireground tactics negates your comments about honesty with City Councils and the public.”

They all uniformly agree that it is not possible to mount a four person entry team with the first arriving engine company even if it is staffed with four. But they all admitted it is possible if both of the first two arriving engines were staffed with three. Maybe you have information they don’t. Since I am always trying to learn as much as I can, perhaps you could edify me where they are wrong.

I have a copy of a memorandum from the IAFF, dated 12-30-97, sent by IAFF District Vice Presidents to: All State & Local Presidents & Secretaries. It was signed by Alfred K. Whitehead, General President. The topic of the memorandum was, Final 2-in/2-out OSHA Regulation Issued.

The memorandum, in part, said, “It is OSHA’s position that no one may serve as a standby member of the fire fighting team when the other activities in which he or she is engaged inhibit his or her ability to assist in or perform rescue, if necessary, or are of such importance that they cannot be abandoned without placing other fire fighters in danger. OSHA has determined that these regulations are in effect at any fire which is beyond the initial or beginning stage and which cannot be controlled or extinguished by portable fire extinguishers, Class II standpipe, or small hose systems without the need for protective clothing or breathing apparatus.”

Would you intentionally put your fellow firefighters at risk by ordering the engineer to vacate his fixed position at the controls of the pump so that he could join you and the other two firefighters to make up a four-person entry team? What would happen if the attack hose broke or the motor on the engine overheated and stalled? Your entry team would immediately loose water pressure and be placed at an unnecessary risk, because the engineer would not be able to make the adjustments and corrections to guarantee the water supply. Or did you make entry with just a three-person entry team? You appear to be in violation of your own department policy and those who speak for the fire industry, including your own state and federal union. Are OSHA, the State Office of Emergency Services, and the NFPA all incorrect as well? Also, what about your command duties at the fire? Don’t you need to access the developing situation and make sure that the incoming resources are going to be deployed to maximize their value?

On the other hand, I agree with you that those kinds of decisions -- to make entry to extinguish a fire -- should not be dictated by gray haired commissioners from far away who have no idea about fire operations and the experience firefighters bring to a single event. You have a lot of experience and you should have the flexibility to evaluate a particular situation and make decisions about how to attack and extinguish a structure fire based upon many factors, but predominated by safety to your team. If safety standards are met, you should have the ability to engage the fire regardless of how many are present, so long as you exercise prudence and caution. This whole problem rests at the doorstep of the IAFF. They orchestrated this four-person entry team in 1996 in a meeting with an Assistant Secretary of Labor. I spoke with a person who was in the room at the time and he could not believe what he saw and heard. I spoke directly to this person who at the time was chief counsel for a state OSHA. If you notice, the language of the 2 in, 2 out rule, is squeezed between two paragraphs of the respiratory standard act that was being updated and was put there under the IAFF’s threat of not endorsing President Clinton’s run for his second term. It took the assistant labor secretary twenty-four hours to see that the 2 in, 2 out rule was placed in the non-sequitur respiratory standards. This, according to the chief counsel was an illegal act because there were no public hearings, and it is still technically illegal today, although no one has raised the issue.

“Which union reps have done this (stating that it takes four firefighters before they can entry a burning structure to save a life) and when? Is this more unfounded anecdotal claims?”

There are others, but I will cite two. Pasadena Fire Captain John Tennant, who at the time was the president of the Pasadena Firefighters’ Union, made the quotes. Quote # 1: “State labor regulations require that at least two firefighters enter a burning structure for a rescue effort or to attempt to put a fire out, with at least two firefighters standing by outside – a condition that can’t be met with only three firefighters assigned to the first company arriving at a fire.” In the same article and in response to the fire union president’s statement, (Pasadena) City Councilman, Paul Little, stated, “An extra firefighter seems to make sense to me. As I understand it, with a three- person truck (meaning engine), they can get there, but can’t really do much until a four (sic) person is available. In the event of catastrophic fire, a truck getting there and not being able to effect a rescue would be a disaster.” The article was published in the Los Angeles Times, San Gabriel Valley Edition, on May 28, 1996.

Pasadena fire management at the time was not without culpability in perpetuating the myth. In a written response to an independent audit firm that recommended continued staffing with three on two engine companies that each had less than one call per shift, Pasadena fire management responded, “We do not agree with the Audit Team’s recommendation that the two west side stations continue to be staffed with three personnel. As noted by the Audit Team, the recent Cal/OSHA ‘two in/two/out’ ruling requires four firefighters at the fire scene before rescue operations can be undertaken. This means that before two firefighters can enter a structure to effect a rescue or fire extinguishments (they never go in alone), two other firefighters must be on scene, ready to assist if needed. To provide this coverage would require one additional firefighter assigned to both Engine # 38 and Engine # 39, or wait until additional units arrive at the scene, which would delay rescue or extinguishments.” I have a copy of this also if you would like to see it.

Pasadena’s fire management and union were complicit in presenting the false claim that in order to mount a rescue they must have four firefighters. They knew full well of the exemption cited in both OSHA and NFPA standards. I must say, however, that at the time fire management made this erroneous statement, they had an interim chief who was easily intimidated and influenced by the union president. This union president, John Tennant, was second or third in command at the state union level at the time and soon after was appointed by then Governor Gray Davis to become State Fire Marshal. It was well understood who ran the Pasadena Fire Department at the time. Tennant moved his union office in next to the fire chief’s, paid for by the taxpayers and basically ran the department from there. He placed himself on administrative leave from his engine company and spent his full time running the department and the affairs of the CSFA (the state fire union).

******************************************************************************************************************************************

Comment #42: Response by LA Firefighter to Bruce Philpott’s Presentations to the Glendale City Council

Bruce,

Been reading your comments on fire protection. I am anxiously waiting for your replies to my latest questions in the comments thread that

substantiate your claims with something more significant than anecdotes. Your presentations clearly show you have no concept of fire ground operations.

Thanks.

See Bruce Philpott’s New Fire Models, A New Model for Municipal Fire Protection by Retired Pasadena Police Chief Bruce Philpott

******************************************************************************************************************************************

Comment #41: Response by LA Firefighter to Comment #40 by Bruce Philpott

I am surprised, given your college education, that you assume the study came from this fire chief's own department that provides services to a community of 24K. He was also an educator and academician who conducted studies of fire operations and firefighter safety nationwide and I chose to share this particular one with you because it addresses far reaching research on safety and staffing of engine companies. I don't know what you mean by saying, "Are you staking your reputation to that assertion". Are you trying to infer that, by citing a legitimate study by a legitimate researcher and fire chief, that I am somehow staking my reputation on research documents that are well respected? When I commanded a division of the Pasadena Fire Department, I had seven times the number of residents that you serve in your fire district. What does this all mean? It is irrelevant. Better to stay with factual content.

I did a Google search on Joe Erwin looking for this study you claim he performed that details the efficiency of three vs four person staffing. Can't find it. I'm sure you can link to your factual content for further review. You state he was an educator and academician. Where and when?

As I have said before, if there were only one or two engines available in the entire service area, I would agree with you that it would be better to have four rather than three, even though 95% of their normal calls would not require more than three. I would also advocate for two officer patrol cars where police resources are very thin. But in the environment that makes up the greater populated areas of California, having three or four on an engine becomes just numbers. As I have cited before, in just a few minutes, literally hundreds of firefighters can be assembled anywhere in the greater LA basin. Remember the incident where two homeless people were stranded on a sand island in the LA River and one hundred firefighters responded from Los Angeles and Glendale. That is a ratio of fifty rescuers to one victim. Fire resources are very abundant in these communities and whether they are staffed with three or four becomes a mute issue at the scene of a major event. The normal daily operations do not require four firefighters on the engines. I have done a fairly thorough audit of the Glendale Fire Departments Operations Division and found that 99% of medical calls can be handled by a support engine company staffed with three and that 99% of the fire calls can also be handled adequately by three on the engine. With a cost burden of $200,000 per year for one firefighter, the numbers start to get pretty big when you start to staff with four as compared with three. Out of 1740 fire calls last year, there were five major incidents of working structure fires. That is a ratio of 0.0004.

As I stated earlier, You don't get to buy insurance only when you need it. When an emergency occurs you need the manpower immediately. Not wait for it to arrive. Or, as in the case of volunteer departments, sometimes not arriving at all.

You are correct, I don't have experience on the fire ground other than as a police officer. But I do have lots of experience researching the causes of firefighter deaths that occur during structure fires. As you know, the Federal Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the National Safety Council, publish yearly statistics on fatalities in the workplace. Included in that data is an operational overview of each firefighter's death in the country. In analyzing the deaths that occur on the fire ground each year, the picture becomes very clear and the picture is as I have described it. Credibility of the information I shared is contained in the files of the Department of Labor.

You seem to believe that only firefighter deaths due to trauma are the only ones that matter. What about the firefighter who collapses later back at the station because he (or she) was unaware of the increased levels of CO in his system as a result of hazardous exposures. Or the fact that firefighters have a far greater chance of contracting various cancers due to exposures.

http://www.nycosh.org/specific_industries/Firefighters&cancerJOEM2006.pdf

Is a firefighter who dies years later from cancer less dead than one that has a building that falls on his head? You tell me.

It might very well be better to let the robbers leave the location of the robbery before the police engaged them. Robbery, by legal definition, is the taking of property in the presence of the victim through force or fear. That means civilians are present and could be placed at risk if the police interceded at the wrong moment. Allowing the robber the opportunity to take a hostage is not a good idea. A typical scenario would be an AM-PM type market. If I rolled up on a robbery in progress, I would call for backup and be prepared to engage the robber after he had left the store.

Police biz. Don't know anything about it. It's one of the reasons I stood in the fire line.

Regarding running into burning structures, you need to read my comments with a little more clarity. What I said was, "if it (the structure) was too far gone anyway". You and I both know very well that every operation manual in every fire department states that the primary purpose of firefighters when initially arriving at the scene of a structure fire is to make a rapid assessment of possible occupancy, and, if so, the focus is rescue. This always comes before extinguishments, unless it is too unsafe to make entry. The condition of the building at the time the firefighters arrive on scene is key to making decisions such as attempting a rescue or search for possible inhabitants. They also have the option of either trying to save it by making a quick attack, or, if too far gone, surrounding it and drowning it. It became very clear to me when I was researching the causes of deaths of firefighters on the fire ground that many times they were attempting to fight a fire that was already lost, but they were still penetrating extreme hazardous areas. For some, it was their last shift. Critics of many of these incidents conclude that the firefighters had no business being where they were when they died. The buildings were too far gone to have any value to the owner, and had there been someone inside, they could not have survived. Why would you advocate making entry into a fully developed structure fire when all is a loss anyway, especially when you are risking the lives of your fellow firefighters? An over aggressive attitude has cost firefighters' lives. Just read the narratives of the firefighters who have died trying to extinguish a fire that has already been declared a lost cause.

I don't try to save buildings that are too far gone. And there is a paradigm shift to re-evaluate that thought process. Won't argue with that. Being able to affect a credible rescue is labor intensive. Once again you want to argue that it is a small statistical probability in your belief to lower firefighter staffing. I on the other hand believe people needing rescue are not numbers.

I want to thank you for this comment, because it does allow us to find some common ground for discussing the differences between police and fire services. The time a law enforcement officer spends thwarting a crime in progress occurs every shift. He or she is driving a marked police vehicle that lets the general public know there is a police presence in their neighborhoods. It gives comfort to those who are law abiding. Police presence also lets those who might wander beyond legal limits to give a second thought. Whether it is speeding, running a red light or some teenager thinking about shoplifting, the presence of police is a reminder that they might have to pay a price for their risky thoughts. Police take drunk drivers off the streets every day who might otherwise have killed an unsuspecting motorist or pedestrian.

Prove to me that an officer on patrol in a patrol car has prevented one crime?

The point is that although the police rarely encounter a crime in progress, they continue to provide a valuable service to the community during the rest of their shift. In Glendale, Burbank and Pasadena, the average time a patrol officer is engaged in taking crime reports and investigation, collecting evidence and making arrests, taking traffic accident reports, etc., amounts to about 20% to 30% of their shift. The other 70% to 80% is known as proactive patrol where they are constantly on the lookout for stolen cars, enforcing traffic laws, impounding abandoned cars that can cluttering a neighborhood, patrolling around schools when students are entering or leaving campus, checking on known career criminal hang outs or locations of drug transactions, and the list goes on and on.

Prove to me that an officer on patrol in a patrol car has prevented one crime?

In the fire culture, firefighters have evolved into a work format where they wait inside a fire station for an emergency call to come in and then respond to it. When they complete the call they drive back into the fire station and wait for the next call. According to their own data, firefighters from Pasadena, Burbank and Glendale are, on average, handling these calls for approximately 4% of their shift. Unlike the cop on proactive patrol, the firefighters spend fifteen minutes per emergency call and then return to their station to wait for the next call. They have gotten so spoiled that they don't even do their own landscaping maintenance around the station anymore. I drive by my neighborhood fire station all of the time and observe three landscape maintenance employees from a private company mowing and trimming the lawn at an annual cost of $35,000 citywide. The career firefighter study group that I worked with for many years came up with new models that would harness this incredible human resource and put it into productive activity between the infrequent emergency calls.

Once again I have to state that we don't get to schedule peak staffing because of a scheduled emergency. Your comments about being spoiled really reveal your true colors. You finally let it out that you have no respect for a firefighter’s duties. Has it occurred to you there are city departments who might have demanded to do the maintenance work since that is their function? There might also be a possibility the chief of the department believes his firefighters’ time can be spent doing something more productive than mowing the lawn. You mention a career firefighter study group. Who was on it and what were their qualifications? Or is this another one of your coterie of sycophants who need to remain nameless?

Why is the most costly workforce in all of government non-productive for the vast majority of its shift? Firefighters could be enormously valuable to the public during the 96% of their shift when they are on non-productive standby. They could be patrolling just like the cops. Talk about another set of public safety eyes and ears, each community could double its proactive public safety resources. But firefighters have gotten very accustomed to this routine and they will do practically anything to protect the status quo. From a purely self-interest point of view I can't blame them (you).

You clearly don't know the routine of the station house. After routine maintenance is done in the morning the afternoon is typically spent doing fire safety inspections, school programs, PR events for local city groups, etc. As far as patrolling the neighborhoods, what exactly should firefighters be doing? Stopping kids from playing in the street. Preventing someone from mowing their lawn if they aren't wearing hearing protection? How well do you believe the interference into what is or isn't considered safe be allowed against an ordinary citizen. You take a broad swipe with little detail. And lastly, you claim to be concerned about the fiscal impact to a city's budget. The operation of a fire engine or truck is a little more expensive than a patrol car. Having them centrally located ready to respond is the most efficient use of that resource.

The reason why the volunteer component of the OCFD is being criticized is because the union wants the volunteers to be replaced with card carrying union guys. They are and have been undermining that program for years. If the chief were truly trying to contain costs, he would get behind the volunteer program and make it exemplary like many others thorough out the country. But, like many in fire management, he is willing to go along with the union. After all it's not his money that is being spent on this service. He also knows that the more power the union gets, the larger the salaries and benefits they will receive. He is the top recipient of those increases because he is the ultimate benefactor of the step increases between ranks.

I am very good friends with a BC who used to oversee the volunteer program in OCFD. He is by no means a fan of their firefighter union. He has worked in that department since the early 70's. In his opinion the volunteer program has been a disaster for years before the OCFD even had its own union (which didn't form till the mid 90's). My friend cited an abysmal response rate of less than 50% and an annual turnover over of 30%. Operational effectiveness was atrocious. You are clearly uninformed on that group. I sent several articles to you detailing the difficulties of finding volunteers and then keeping them. Any company that had a division with a less than 50% service delivery and 30% turnover would soon be out of business due to the enormous expenses used in constantly training a third of the workforce every year. My colleague in the OCFD states the only reason the volunteer program even remotely exists now is due to an anachronistic belief amongst certain politicos who live in a different world where there is a ready cadre of individuals who have nothing better to do than sit around and wait for their pagers to call them to an emergency. Lastly you allude that the chief is in tacit alliance with the union due to his own self interest in compensation separation between ranks. If that were the case why wouldn't he be giving the rank and file firefighters more significant raises than they currently receive? Like your earlier statements of the relationship between an elected official doing fund raising and a firefighter union's PAC you try to draw some type of nefarious conspiracy. I wouldn't be surprised if you saw a lone gunman behind a grassy knoll in Dealy Plaza.

We have already debunked the claim that firefighters have a greater risk of dying when compared to other occupations, so Chief Prather's comments about "hurt and die" is just more rhetoric to reinforce the myth. But, like a trooper, Prather is always willing to throw that in for the unknowing reader. I have not come across one firefighter from a strike team coming from a city fire department like LA, Glendale, Burbank or Pasadena, working a brush or forest fire, who died. Maybe you could edify me. Most people are not aware of this but firefighters who respond to these kinds of fires from city departments remain on the asphalt. They stay on surface streets to protect homes that abut the brush and when the fire comes close enough they activate their water stream to protect the homes. It's the federal and state firefighters who actually enter the wilderness, dragging the hoses and shovels up canyons and ridges and it is that kind of firefighter who is statistically placed at risk. The other group of firefighters who are placed in extreme danger are from county and state prison camps. The federal and state firefighters are paid at a fraction of what the city firefighters make and the prisoners, well you know the answer, zilch.

Goes to show you how much you know. The OCFD had a very close call. The investigation has just started as to why about a dozen of their firefighters had to deploy their shelters during the recent fires. My colleague tells me they almost lost all of their firefighters at one time. So the answer to your statement about minimal hazards is once again false. While you would like everyone to believe that firefighting is almost risk free those same statistics you cite about the lack of injury to firefighters also state there is even less of a risk of injury to law enforcement personnel. Like lateral police officers I know who start in one department and move to another because of compensation. Once again I have to ask why you aren't demanding that police staffing and pay be reduced accordingly? Since the crime rate is 20% lower in 2006 than it was in 1990, shouldn't we be addressing the reduction of police staffing as well? Since you claim to have a passion for the fiscal health of a community, why aren't you demanding that police staffing be reduced to lower the expenses of a municipalities most expensive cost center? You state in your mythical city manager study that fire departments are tradition driven to the point of dysfunction. Then you state there are no private law enforcement entities providing that service to a municipality. Is that not also a tradition that could easily be disregarded in the interest of fiscal responsibility?

As far as the compensation levels of the state and federal firefighters that is a parochial issue to those groups. Over the years I've had several individuals work for me who started in both the CDF and USFS.

First, I advocate that we save firefighter lives by restricting entry to buildings that are too far gone to make any difference. You say that we should continue this high-risk enterprise. The "hit the beach at all cost" is, in fact, costing the lives of firefighters needlessly. You are too aggressive at times when the opposite should be the approach. The outcome either way is about the same: leave a partially demolished structure that could collapse or leave pure ashes and rubble. Which is easier to demolish ? The weakened structure that is left from the fire puts the demolition team unnecessarily at risk. Which of these two policies puts firefighters lives in more jeopardy, yours or mine? Can you site me a study that shows where firefighters are put at risk of injury or dying when they are staffed with three instead of four at the scene of a fire? As I pointed out before, they die on the fire ground not because there are three on the crew, but because they became disoriented and lose their judgment or bearings when fifty or more of them are massed at large structure fires. The IAFF tried several years ago to show data that would confirm your premise that four is safer than three on the fire ground, but with all of their resources and vast data banks to check, they couldn't come up with any. The IAFF was also asked to produce documentation that showed where the first arriving engine company with four was safer than with three. They were not able to produce anything there either. With thousands of structure fires annually, you would think that they could come up with at least one incident.

When you are a firefighter tasked with protecting lives and property your views on what should or shouldn't be policy will matter. Until then it is your opinion.

When was the I.A.F.F. asked for this data? Despite the mythical study you cite, having more manpower at the scene to reduce injuries is only common sense. Three people can lift a 300# patient or object easier than two, and one most likely can't do it all.

I never claimed the study, conducted by the Texas fire chief that showed staffing with three on engines is safer than staffing with four, "as being the last word". It is one of many studies done on this issue and local communities will continue to debate it in light of financial and other considerations. The important part of this is that there are studies to refute the union's claims.

Like I asked earlier, I would like to read this study but can't find it.

Regarding Volunteer Fire Departments with an ISO rating of Class I, you dismiss the professionalism of the volunteer firefighters, yet at the same time you give great credence to the ISO's ability to determine the effectiveness of fire service delivery in differing cities and communities. Which is it, either the ISO is out of whack by giving Class I status to volunteer departments or the ISO has the ability to access the performance of departments by setting a rating system that is acceptable.

In the communities you cited that model may very well work. Considering that my unit averages over 10 runs per shift in an area larger than the two cities (you cited) combined I have sincere doubts it would work in the LA area. Comparing the demographic of Fallon, NV or DuBois, PA to an urbanized neighborhood like even say Eagle Rock is almost a non-sequitur.

I kind of feel like former President Ronald Reagan in his bid for his second term of office when he said, "Well, there you go again". I never said that I advocate for fire departments in the LA basin to be all volunteer. Where did you come up with that conclusion? But you seem to find joy in denigrating volunteer fire departments. Have you ever seen the all volunteer Sierra Madre Fire Department in action? Have you ever looked at their response and suppression data? Have you attended one of their community events that play tribute to the brave men and women of that department? That city is extremely proud of their volunteer firefighters. You should be a little more careful as to how you characterize them. You should refrain from castigating these fine men and women who put their lives on the line as much as you and your company crew.

I came to that conclusion because you cited two examples of Class I departments that are all volunteer. If you believe it is a leap of logic to believe that you want all fire departments to be volunteer you may want to consider rethinking how you express yourself. In some communities that model will work. In heavily urbanized areas (Sierra Madre's model would most likely fail in Boyle Heights or even a neighborhood like Cheviot Hills) it typically won't. The issues of recruitment, response, and retention I stated earlier are but three reasons why the volunteer model is only accepted in communities that have no choice because of their economic capacity or remote location. Sierra Madre knows they have big brothers to back them up for anything serious. Does their suppression data detail how often they receive mutual aid? You brought them into the discussion. That makes their operational ability a subject for further scrutiny.

You are absolutely right when you state that staffing levels are set by local governments. But what I have discovered is that city councils rely exclusively on their fire departments regarding staffing levels. And, with most of them being run by the union (75% according to the Redwood City survey of city managers), what kind of information do you think that the council members are going to receive? They are told that in order for firefighters to enter a burning building to extinguish a fire they have to assemble four firefighters to make up an entry team. This is known as the 2 in, 2 out rule. And that is the primary reason they say every engine company has to be staffed with a minimum of four firefighters. Fire management and unions also tell the city councils that the NFPA 1710 "REQUIRES" that engine companies be staffed with a minimum of four firefighters.

Once again you cite a mythical survey from the Redwood city manager to bolster your claim that 75% of fire departments are run by the union. The chief is the recognized expert in the city advising local governments on staffing. Are you saying that all chiefs that have four person staffing do so because they are being forced to by the unions? That's a lot of water to carry and you've proven over and over again you aren't Gunga Din. I bet I could easily write a survey or questionnaire that states city managers actually run a city and the council are mere figureheads to do the manager's bidding. I won't for the simple reason it would be a waste of time and nothing more than conjecture like your study.

As you know, not one city in the entire State of California has ever adopted NFPA 1710, so the issue of "REQUIRED" is irrelevant. Most cities in the country still staff with three, not four. It is also relevant to note that one of the chief corporate officers of the NFPA happens to be the president of the IAFF. And, as you know, it is impossible to mount a four person entry team with the first arriving engine company. One firefighter has to standby the hydrant, and the engineer, being classified as a heavy equipment operator, must remain at the pump controls. The captain on the first arriving engine is the incident commander until relieved by someone of higher authority. That leaves one of the four firefighters on the first arriving engine company who has the ability to participate in the four person entry team. The entry team can only be assembled after two engine companies have arrived, whether they are staffed with three or four. You also have to ventilate the structure that is on fire before making entry. That requires the presence of a truck company, which typically arrives around the same time as the second engine company. It is sad, but fire spokespersons, union and management, have sold this bogus "minimum staffing with four" to so many local city councils. Councils have been sold a bill of goods at the great expense of taxpayers and no benefit to the public. Over the last few years, money has been diverted from other operating departments such as libraries and parks and recreation to fund the fourth firefighter on engines. One engine company staffed with four cannot mount an interior attack on a structure fire. But two engine companies, staffed with three each, can. This con has cost the taxpayers of this state hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions by now. This is an issue that will eventually have to make its way to a much higher level of scrutiny.

Once again you make statements about firefighter operations in complete ignorance. One firefighter is NOT required to standby the hydrant. Once the connection is made and the line is charged (typically less than a minute) that individual is then free to report to the company officer and team up with the other firefighter (typically advancing the hoselines towards the fire) and make entry. Ventilation is not always necessary. Please restrict your commentary to police operations. It is obvious you have no clue about fireground tactics. Once again you show your true colors by calling the need for increased staffing a "con." I am glad to know you believe a staffing level that increases firefighter safety and the efficiency of delivering a service to the public a "con." Thanks.

One of the major reasons why no city has adopted NFPA 1710 is the recommendations of 1710 are more extensive than staffing. There are water sources, station location, dispatch and response criteria that would not be possible unless one could wipe a slate clean and plan an urban environment from scratch.

The union continues to perpetuate this bogus claim. An article in the Los Angeles Times last week quoted Afrack Vargas, a spokesman for the California State Firefighters Association. He stated that state rules require that two firefighters be present as backup for every two that enter a burning building. With three on an engine, that's impossible, he said. What he didn't say was that with four on the engine it is still impossible. Omissions are just as misleading as bald-faced lies. I also spoke a couple of weeks ago with Carl Peterson, who is the Director of the Public Fire Protection Division of the NFPA. He told me that the first engine company arriving at the scene of a structure fire, if staffed with four, would not be able to mount an interior attack using the 2 in, 2 out rule due to the reasons I cited above. The NFPA guidebook, along with all local fire operation manuals, requires that one firefighter standby at the hydrant until given the command to activate the water flow and the engineer must remain at the controls that regulate the water supply to the firefighters who make up the entry team. Why hasn't fire management or the fire union been honest with city councils and the public?

Wrong again. I've already shown you have no clue about fireground operations. Four person engines are quite capable of entering burning structures and do it regularly. I did it with my crew not less than a month ago. Your ignorance regarding fireground tactics negates your comments about honesty with City Councils and the public.

What's even worse is that some union reps have also told city councils that in order for them to be able to make an entry into a burning building to save a life, there have to be four firefighters present. If you doubt this claim, I can send you the newspaper articles that include this blatant lie, in quotes, from local fire union presidents. You know as well as I that Fed/OSHA and Cal/OSHA both have an exception provision that allows the entry by even one firefighter to attempt a rescue.

Which union reps have done this and when? Is this more unfounded anecdotal claims? I do know that Fed/OSHA has that provision. I am sure you can easily scan the newspaper articles and send them to the address I use for this dialogue via Hal.

******************************************************************************************************************************************

Comment #40: Response by Bruce Philpott to Comment # 39 by LA Firefighter

“What a surprise. ICMA holds dear a study from a fire chief from a city with a whopping 24K population as the gospel on fire ground safety. Are you for real in staking your reputation to that assertion? I have more residents in my response area as a captain than this chief had in his entire jurisdiction.”

I am surprised, given your college education, that you assume the study came from this fire chief’s own department that provides services to a community of 24K. He was also an educator and academician who conducted studies of fire operations and firefighter safety nationwide and I chose to share this particular one with you because it addresses far reaching research on safety and staffing of engine companies. I don’t know what you mean by saying, “Are you staking your reputation to that assertion”. Are you trying to infer that, by citing a legitimate study by a legitimate researcher and fire chief, that I am somehow staking my reputation on research documents that are well respected? When I commanded a division of the Pasadena Fire Department, I had seven times the number of residents that you serve in your fire district. What does this all mean? It is irrelevant. Better to stay with factual content.

You cite the Insurance Service Office study that says, “Crews with three firefighters work more slowly than larger crews”.

In response to my statement, “As you know, the greatest loss of life on the fire ground is when there are large numbers of firefighters present. There is a breakdown of central command and control and one or more crews get caught up in the chaos of the moment and make a critical mistake”, you state, “Once again I would like you to detail your experience either on the fire ground or as a fire ground command officer that would give you credibility in that statement”.

You are correct, I don’t have experience on the fire ground other than as a police officer. But I do have lots of experience researching the causes of firefighter deaths that occur during structure fires. As you know, the Federal Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the National Safety Council, publish yearly statistics on fatalities in the workplace. Included in that data is an operational overview of each firefighter’s death in the country. In analyzing the deaths that occur on the fire ground each year, the picture becomes very clear and the picture is as I have described it. Credibility of the information I shared is contained in the files of the Department of Labor.

“Your opinion that structures should be allowed to burn is why you weren’t a firefighter. It is akin to a police officer watching a robbery in progress and saying they’d just let it happen because it’s safer for the officers who might get hurt. One of the major reasons for running into burning structures is ensuring that no one is being burned alive inside. Unless you now believe that isn’t important.”

Regarding running into burning structures, you need to read my comments with a little more clarity. What I said was, “if it (the structure) was too far gone anyway”. You and I both know very well that every operation manual in every fire department states that the primary purpose of firefighters when initially arriving at the scene of a structure fire is to make a rapid assessment of possible occupancy, and, if so, the focus is rescue. This always comes before extinguishments, unless it is too unsafe to make entry. The condition of the building at the time the firefighters arrive on scene is key to making decisions such as attempting a rescue or search for possible inhabitants. They also have the option of either trying to save it by making a quick attack, or, if too far gone, surrounding it and drowning it. It became very clear to me when I was researching the causes of deaths of firefighters on the fire ground that many times they were attempting to fight a fire that was already lost, but they were still penetrating extreme hazardous areas. For some, it was their last shift. Critics of many of these incidents conclude that the firefighters had no business being where they were when they died. The buildings were too far gone to have any value to the owner, and had there been someone inside, they could not have survived. Why would you advocate making entry into a fully developed structure fire when all is a loss anyway, especially when you are risking the lives of your fellow firefighters? An over aggressive attitude has cost firefighters’ lives. Just read the narratives of the firefighters who have died trying to extinguish a fire that has already been declared a lost cause.

“What is the actual time a law enforcement officer spends thwarting a crime in progress. I bet it is less than a firefighter who actually puts out fires or saves a life via a call to a medical emergency.”

In the fire culture, firefighters have evolved into a work format where they wait inside a fire station for an emergency call to come in and then respond to it. When they complete the call they drive back into the fire station and wait for the next call. According to their own data, firefighters from Pasadena, Burbank and Glendale are, on average, handling these calls for approximately 4% of their shift. Unlike the cop on proactive patrol, the firefighters spend fifteen minutes per emergency call and then return to their station to wait for the next call. They have gotten so spoiled that they don’t even do their own landscaping maintenance around the station anymore. I drive by my neighborhood fire station all of the time and observe three landscape maintenance employees from a private company mowing and trimming the lawn at an annual cost of $35,000 citywide. The career firefighter study group that I worked with for many years came up with new models that would harness this incredible human resource and put it into productive activity between the infrequent emergency calls.

“Prather (Orange County Fire District Fire Chief) said there have been concerns that many volunteers did not respond to emergencies and were not trained as well as professionals. Research indicated that the volunteer program was losing people at a rapid rate.”

The reason why the volunteer component of the OCFD is being criticized is because the union wants the volunteers to be replaced with card carrying union guys. They are and have been undermining that program for years. If the chief were truly trying to contain costs, he would get behind the volunteer program and make it exemplary like many others thorough out the country. But, like many in fire management, he is willing to go along with the union. After all it’s not his money that is being spent on this service. He also knows that the more power the union gets, the larger the salaries and benefits they will receive. He is the top recipient of those increases because he is the ultimate benefactor of the step increases between ranks.

You continued quoting Prather, “It was irresponsible to have these people who were. . .not able to maintain their training getting on rigs and going out to protect homes,” Prather said. “This isn’t an old boys club with a parade engine. People get hurt and die doing this.”

We have already debunked the claim that firefighters have a greater risk of dying when compared to other occupations, so Chief Prather’s comments about “hurt and die” is just more rhetoric to reinforce the myth. But, like a trooper, Prather is always willing to throw that in for the unknowing reader. I have not come across one firefighter from a strike team coming from a city fire department like LA, Glendale, Burbank or Pasadena, working a brush or forest fire, who died. Maybe you could edify me. Most people are not aware of this but firefighters who respond to these kinds of fires from city departments remain on the asphalt. They stay on surface streets to protect homes that abut the brush and when the fire comes close enough they activate their water stream to protect the homes. It’s the federal and state firefighters who actually enter the wilderness, dragging the hoses and shovels up canyons and ridges and it is that kind of firefighter who is statistically placed at risk. The other group of firefighters who are placed in extreme danger are from county and state prison camps. The federal and state firefighters are paid at a fraction of what the city firefighters make and the prisoners, well you know the answer, zilch.

“Your firefighter safety logic is flawed and you know it.”

First, I advocate that we save firefighter lives by restricting entry to buildings that are too far gone to make any difference. You say that we should continue this high-risk enterprise. The “hit the beach at all cost” is, in fact, costing the lives of firefighters needlessly. You are too aggressive at times when the opposite should be the approach. The outcome either way is about the same: leave a partially demolished structure that could collapse or leave pure ashes and rubble. Which is easier to demolish ? The weakened structure that is left from the fire puts the demolition team unnecessarily at risk. Which of these two policies puts firefighters lives in more jeopardy, yours or mine? Can you site me a study that shows where firefighters are put at risk of injury or dying when they are staffed with three instead of four at the scene of a fire? As I pointed out before, they die on the fire ground not because there are three on the crew, but because they became disoriented and lose their judgment or bearings when fifty or more of them are massed at large structure fires. The IAFF tried several years ago to show data that would confirm your premise that four is safer than three on the fire ground, but with all of their resources and vast data banks to check, they couldn’t come up with any. The IAFF was also asked to produce documentation that showed where the first arriving engine company with four was safer than with three. They were not able to produce anything there either. With thousands of structure fires annually, you would think that they could come up with at least one incident.

“I am sure you can link to the study you claim as being the last word on firefighter so others may read its rationale.”

I never claimed the study, conducted by the Texas fire chief that showed staffing with three on engines is safer than staffing with four, “as being the last word”. It is one of many studies done on this issue and local communities will continue to debate it in light of financial and other considerations. The important part of this is that there are studies to refute the union’s claims.

Regarding Volunteer Fire Departments with an ISO rating of Class I, you dismiss the professionalism of the volunteer firefighters, yet at the same time you give great credence to the ISO’s ability to determine the effectiveness of fire service delivery in differing cities and communities. Which is it, either the ISO is out of whack by giving Class I status to volunteer departments or the ISO has the ability to access the performance of departments by setting a rating system that is acceptable.

You also state, “The megalopolis known as the LA basin has a population roughly 600 times larger than both of those cities (the two volunteer Class I departments I had mentioned) combined. If you are going to try and claim that extrapolating that model to protect all of LA county is feasible I can only tell you that may be on of the reasons fewer are willing to take you seriously”.

I kind of feel like former President Ronald Reagan in his bid for his second term of office when he said, “Well, there you go again”. I never said that I advocate for fire departments in the LA basin to be all volunteer. Where did you come up with that conclusion? But you seem to find joy in denigrating volunteer fire departments. Have you ever seen the all volunteer Sierra Madre Fire Department in action? Have you ever looked at their response and suppression data? Have you attended one of their community events that play tribute to the brave men and women of that department? That city is extremely proud of their volunteer firefighters. You should be a little more careful as to how you characterize them. You should refrain from castigating these fine men and women who put their lives on the line as much as you and your company crew.

“Again I have to state that staffing levels are set by local governments. I would wager the policy makers of those locales are not willing to accept your premise their constituencies would not be at risk with fewer personnel.

You are absolutely right when you state that staffing levels are set by local governments. But what I have discovered is that city councils rely exclusively on their fire departments regarding staffing levels. And, with most of them being run by the union (75% according to the Redwood City survey of city managers), what kind of information do you think that the council members are going to receive? They are told that in order for firefighters to enter a burning building to extinguish a fire they have to assemble four firefighters to make up an entry team. This is known as the 2 in, 2 out rule. And that is the primary reason they say every engine company has to be staffed with a minimum of four firefighters. Fire management and unions also tell the city councils that the NFPA 1710 “REQUIRES” that engine companies be staffed with a minimum of four firefighters.

As you know, not one city in the entire State of California has ever adopted NFPA 1710, so the issue of “REQUIRED” is irrelevant. Most cities in the country still staff with three, not four. It is also relevant to note that one of the chief corporate officers of the NFPA happens to be the president of the IAFF. And, as you know, it is impossible to mount a four person entry team with the first arriving engine company. One firefighter has to standby the hydrant, and the engineer, being classified as a heavy equipment operator, must remain at the pump controls. The captain on the first arriving engine is the incident commander until relieved by someone of higher authority. That leaves one of the four firefighters on the first arriving engine company who has the ability to participate in the four person entry team. The entry team can only be assembled after two engine companies have arrived, whether they are staffed with three or four. You also have to ventilate the structure that is on fire before making entry. That requires the presence of a truck company, which typically arrives around the same time as the second engine company. It is sad, but fire spokespersons, union and management, have sold this bogus “minimum staffing with four” to so many local city councils. Councils have been sold a bill of goods at the great expense of taxpayers and no benefit to the public. Over the last few years, money has been diverted from other operating departments such as libraries and parks and recreation to fund the fourth firefighter on engines. One engine company staffed with four cannot mount an interior attack on a structure fire. But two engine companies, staffed with three each, can. This con has cost the taxpayers of this state hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions by now. This is an issue that will eventually have to make its way to a much higher level of scrutiny.

The union continues to perpetuate this bogus claim. An article in the Los Angeles Times last week quoted Afrack Vargas, a spokesman for the California State Firefighters Association. He stated that state rules require that two firefighters be present as backup for every two that enter a burning building. With three on an engine, that’s impossible, he said. What he didn’t say was that with four on the engine it is still impossible. Omissions are just as misleading as bald-faced lies. I also spoke a couple of weeks ago with Carl Peterson, who is the Director of the Public Fire Protection Division of the NFPA. He told me that the first engine company arriving at the scene of a structure fire, if staffed with four, would not be able to mount an interior attack using the 2 in, 2 out rule due to the reasons I cited above. The NFPA guidebook, along with all local fire operation manuals, requires that one firefighter standby at the hydrant until given the command to activate the water flow and the engineer must remain at the controls that regulate the water supply to the firefighters who make up the entry team. Why hasn’t fire management or the fire union been honest with city councils and the public?

What’s even worse is that some union reps have also told city councils that in order for them to be able to make an entry into a burning building to save a life, there have to be four firefighters present. If you doubt this claim, I can send you the newspaper articles that include this blatant lie, in quotes, from local fire union presidents. You know as well as I that Fed/OSHA and Cal/OSHA both have an exception provision that allows the entry by even one firefighter to attempt a rescue.

******************************************************************************************************************************************

Comment #39: Response by LA Firefighter to Comment #38 by Bruce Philpott

This delayed response problem was made known to the chief over five weeks ago and they were first identified in a consultant's report as "failed incidents" to the Glendale Fire Department in 2004. The GFD did not react to the information then and wouldn't now if the city manager didn't take the responsibility and made a public statement that he has asked the fire chief to respond. It doesn't seem like it is much of a concern to the chief or any other member of the fire department. From their inaction, it appears as though they are more interested in maintaining the policy that allows them to jog in remote parks and in out-of-district locations than to do what the public expects: investigate the issue, identify the problems, incorporate remedies and then tell the public what has been done and how they have been able to reduce response times. Since he has been instructed by the city manager to prepare a report, it will eventually come. But we just don't know when. The longer he waits the worst it will look. That would be okay if it wasn't an issue that dealt with life and death.

I will have to take my lead from the chief. He is the expert in that city and the activity of its personnel. You are not. I am still waiting to see any stories that emerge detailing the state of public safety being jeopardized as a result of your claims.

I have read the studies and they have less validity than the ones I have read that say it is safer for engine companies to be staffed with three, not four. All of the studies funded by the IAFF show four as minimum staffing. Those that are not funded by the union show three are as effective as four and that three is safer. Have you heard of an old time fire chief from Hurst, Texas by the name of Joe Erwin? He retired in 1995 and published his take on a number of issues that aid in dissolving the myth about fatalities in the fire service. He also cited a study that was published in The National Run Survey, Firehouse (June, 1994). The article he wrote, "Firefighter Safety: An Update", was published in the Public Management Magazine of the International City Managers Associated. He cited the following:

What a surprise. ICMA holds dear a study from a fire chief from a city with a whopping 24K population as the gospel on fire ground safety. Are you for real in staking your reputation to that assertion? I have more residents in my response area as a captain than this chief had in his entire jurisdiction.

You may have missed it. There was an article in last Sunday's LA Times.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-resources28oct28,1,6690583.story?coll=la-headlines-california

Here is an excerpt:

Crews with three firefighters work more slowly than larger crews, according to a study by the Insurance Services Organization, a national group that evaluates fire departments.

I would think the ISO is a far more non partisan source than either the IAFF or the ICMA.

The same holds true for police patrols. It is safer for a one officer patrol car than a two officer patrol car. When there are fewer of them they are more cautious of their surroundings. As you know, the greatest loss of life on the fire ground is when there are large numbers of firefighters present. There is a breakdown of central command and control and one or more crews get caught up in the chaos of the moment and make a critical mistake. If I had my way, fewer firefighters would die at the scene of these large fires, because I would adopt the policy that would require them to surround the structure and drown the flames or keep them from spreading and not try and save a portion of the structure, if it is too far gone anyway. It is easier and safer for the demolition crew to sweep up ashes than to demolish a charred partial frame with building material semi-stuck to them.

I won't speak to your experience in police operations. Once again I would like you to detail your experience either on the fire ground or as a fire ground command officer that would give you credibility in that statement. Your opinion that structures should be allowed to burn is why you weren't a firefighter. It is akin to a police officer watching a robbery in progress and saying they'd just let it happen because it's safer for the officers who might get hurt. One of the major reasons for running into burning structures is ensuring that no one is being burned alive inside. Unless you now believe that isn't important.

When you speak about the 25% work product gained by staffing with a fourth firefighter, it might be the case in a sterile environment where there is only one engine or truck company. But here in southern California, and for that matter, most of California, engine and truck companies can be assembled in mass in short order. When two homeless people were recently stranded on a sand bar in the Los Angeles River, 100 firefighters responded quickly from both LA and Glendale. It wouldn't have mattered if there were 100 (staffing with four) or 75 (staffing with three) firefighters on the scene. The same holds true for any major incident. But the routine day in and day out operations of fire departments are very different than the anomalies that come along once in a while. Having audited thousands of daily activity logs for both engine and truck companies in several cities in southern California, I can tell you exactly how they conduct their time on duty. The average engine company in Glendale responds to 4.4 calls per 24-hour shift. The 4 of the 4.4 daily calls are for medical back up and they are not need on almost all of them. If they were needed, three additional firefighters on the engine offer more additional resources than are required. 99.99% of medical emergencies involve one person. The 0.4 call would be a fire run. 93% of fire alarms are false and 90% of fire incidents are easily extinguished with the 500 gallons aboard the engine. All of these incidents on a daily basis can be more than adequately handled by the three firefighters who are on the engine. When you have the rare and occasional large event such as an auto/train crash with multiple victims or a large working structure fire, the mutual aid system in place today can garner more than enough resources to take care of the incident.

I'm reminded of the scene in Clint Eastwood's movie Heartbreak Ridge where the major is leading a training exercise in being ambushed and he tells his troops the ambush will be over the next ridge. To which his gunnery sergeant tells him how nice it must be to know when and where an ambush will occur. Maybe you as a police chief had the luxury of knowing when increased staffing would be necessary. But we in the fire service don't get that option. When an emergency occurs (whether big or small) it is necessary to have manpower (and women) available right now. That is why few if any pay any attention to your statistics regarding fire calls and the amount of time spent in emergency activity. I as a private citizen don't get the luxury of only buying insurance when I need it. It is the same with public safety. I would like you to add perspective. What is the actual amount of time a law enforcement officer spends thwarting a crime in progress? I bet it is a lot less than a firefighter who actually puts out fires or saves a life via a call to a medical emergency. In the same article I linked there is a soundbite from the OC fire chief that states:

Prather said there have been concerns that many volunteers did not respond to emergencies and were not trained as well as professionals. Research indicated that the volunteer program was losing people at a rapid rate.

"It was irresponsible to have these people who were . . . not able to maintain their training getting on rigs and going out to protect homes," Prather said. "This isn't an old boys club with a parade engine. People get hurt and die doing this."

This soundbite will have more importance later in my response to you.

If you notice, I separated out LA County from the other fire departments that staff with three and are rated Class I like Culver City and Arcadia. I may have made a grammatical error by not putting a common before 'and', and for that I apologize if I misled you. But it is interesting that LA County FD is a highly sought after department. I know many firefighters who want to get a lateral transfer from their present department that staffs with four to go to LA County that staffs primarily with three. If it were a safety issue, why would they want to work on crews that staff with three? Answer is that they are no less safe working on a three person company than a four person company.

I doubt the reason of firefighter safety is the only reason. Other reasons might be economic, working conditions, opportunities for advancement, or the esprit de corp that exists in working for a larger department. Your firefighter safety logic is flawed and you know it. I'm sure you can link to the study you claim as being the last word on firefighter so others may read its rationale.

You might be interested to know that there are Class I Fire Departments that are all-volunteer departments. They perform at the highest level expected of any professional fire department. One is the Fallon/Churchill (pop 7500) Volunteer Fire Department in Nevada. The other is the DuBois (8,000) Volunteer Fire Department in the state of Pennsylvania. According to the ISO (the national organization that sets the Class ratings), these volunteers fight fires just as efficiently and effectively as the paid, career firefighters.

I have actually driven through Fallon, NV. I almost missed it since I blinked twice. Fallon, NV has a population of a whopping 7,500 and DuBois, PA has a population of 8,000 according to http://www.hometownusa.com. The megalopolis known as the LA basin has a population roughly 600 times larger than both of those cities combined. If you are going to try and claim that extrapolating that model to protect all of LA county is feasible I can only tell you that may be one of the reasons fewer are willing to take you seriously.

I used the combined cities of Burbank, Glendale and Pasadena as a reference. They all now staff with four. If they staffed with three, the savings come to $ 20 million.

There are a total of 30 engine and truck companies in the three cities. With three platoons, the number comes to 90 firefighters who represent the fourth position on each of these pieces of apparatus. But they each get vacation days and sick days and other leaves that require position coverage overtime. That comes to $20 million that could be saved each year.

Again I have to state that staffing levels are set by local governments. I would wager the policy makers of those locales are not willing to accept your premise their constituencies would not be at risk with fewer personnel.

Regarding staffing, do you think that people who live in the city of Sierra Madre are any less safe in fire protection than residents of Los Angeles? Do you think that people who live in Culver City or Arcadia, who often staff with three or use reserves daily, are any less safe than people living in Pasadena or Glendale? I have done some auditing and I cannot find that to be the case. Do you have other data that disproves this?

I can only tell you that all three locales you mention have very significant mutual aid contracts. They know if something of any consequence occurs they have units from surrounding areas (Pasadena, South Pasadena, LA County, LAFD) to rely upon. In essence they are being subsidized. And please reread my previous soundbite from the OC Fire Chief in Sunday's Times.

Those are not my experts or my words, those are the words of city managers who responded to the questionnaire posed by the city manager of Redwood City.

Once again I ask what is the combined firefighting experience of the Redwood City city manager or any of the respondents that gives their statements credibility?

As you know, 75% of all fire departments in the country are either staffed with all or mostly volunteers and only 25% have full time paid career firefighters.

In the rural areas of the country you are absolutely correct. The reasons for that are mostly economic. The urban areas of our nation have full time professional firefighters because those tasked with protecting the public's safety (the 1^st priority of government) realize that having a built time delay of response to their citizens is unacceptable. There have been several articles written regarding the difficulty of volunteer departments not only recruiting personnel but keeping them once they are hired. I am attaching those articles to Hal to be forwarded to you since I believe they are too lengthy to be cut and pasted into this response.

I am not aware of one law enforcement agency in the entire country that has all or mostly volunteer police officers. Police officers are sworn officials of the criminal justice system who are given the powers of arrest and detention and the taking of a human life, thereby depriving individuals of rights given in the constitution. I don't see how that can be outsourced to private security companies. Fire departments, on the other hand, could be outsourced to private contractors. Historically, fire departments began as privately owned and operated businesses.

Fire departments did start as private companies. True statement. A system that would work if fires only stayed put where they struck. If your house was insured and caught fire because your neighbor's uninsured house caught fire (because the fire spread) that should tell you why that system was not deemed practical as our urban society became more densely populated. As far as private fire protection. The largest provider of private fire protection is the Rural Metro corporation. After years of protecting the city of Scottsdale, AZ they gave up that contract. Their stated reason was that contract no longer fit into their business model. What that means is they couldn't maintain the response criteria necessary to remain profitable. One of the reasons why many cities are reluctant to privatize fire or EMS services is the track record of the companies providing that service. Rural Metro gave Scottsdale about a year to start a fire department with literally nothing since even the station and communications infrastructure was owned by the corporation. AMR Ambulance gave the city of Newport Beach 72 hours notice it was pulling out of the city and then left 48 hours later. If you don't understand the significance of those actions I can't help you.

Of course you don't see why law enforcement could be privatized. Where is it written that a law enforcement officer who has the power to exercise deadly force (something more rarely done than putting out house fires despite the millions of dollars spent nationally to maintain that level of ability despite the statistic the majority of law enforcement personnel will never fire a shot in their careers) or depriving someone of their liberty can't be contractually given to a private firm? Is there a statute mandating those duties be only performed by individuals hired by a government agency? It should be easy enough to change via the legislature. As I asked earlier, given your concern for fiscal and civic responsibility why aren't you leading the charge to investigate a means to allow city governments to allow them that option? Especially given how law enforcement is typically the largest cost center of every local government.

******************************************************************************************************************************************

Comment #38: Response by Bruce Philpott to Comment # 37 by LA Firefighter

“I have addressed over and over that if the delayed responses are indeed factual the chief will address the issue.”

This delayed response problem was made known to the chief over five weeks ago and they were first identified in a consultant’s report as “failed incidents” to the Glendale Fire Department in 2004. The GFD did not react to the information then and wouldn’t now if the city manager didn’t take the responsibility and made a public statement that he has asked the fire chief to respond. It doesn’t seem like it is much of a concern to the chief or any other member of the fire department. From their inaction, it appears as though they are more interested in maintaining the policy that allows them to jog in remote parks and in out-of-district locations than to do what the public expects: investigate the issue, identify the problems, incorporate remedies and then tell the public what has been done and how they have been able to reduce response times. Since he has been instructed by the city manager to prepare a report, it will eventually come. But we just don’t know when. The longer he waits the worst it will look. That would be okay if it wasn’t an issue that dealt with life and death.

“As far as staffing issues, there are numerous studies that show the amount of work done is greater than 25% with an additional person in addition to reduced injury rates.”

I have read the studies and they have less validity than the ones I have read that say it is safer for engine companies to be staffed with three, not four. All of the studies funded by the IAFF show four as minimum staffing. Those that are not funded by the union show three are as effective as four and that three is safer. Have you heard of an old time fire chief from Hurst, Texas by the name of Joe Erwin? He retired in 1995 and published his take on a number of issues that aid in dissolving the myth about fatalities in the fire service. He also cited a study that was published in The National Run Survey, Firehouse (June, 1994). The article he wrote, “Firefighter Safety: An Update”, was published in the Public Management Magazine of the International City Managers Associated. He cited the following:

Firefighter injuries at Structure Fires, by Staffing Level

Staffing Engine Truck

3 0.1275 0.1318

4 0.1859 0.1718

5 0.2580 0.2583

When you speak about the 25% work product gained by staffing with a fourth firefighter, it might be the case in a sterile environment where there is only one engine or truck company. But here in southern California, and for that matter, most of California, engine and truck companies can be assembled in mass in short order. When two homeless people were recently stranded on a sand bar in the Los Angeles River, 100 firefighters responded quickly from both LA and Glendale. It wouldn’t have mattered if there were 100 (staffing with four) or 75 (staffing with three) firefighters on the scene. The same holds true for any major incident. But the routine day in and day out operations of fire departments are very different than the anomalies that come along once in a while. Having audited thousands of daily activity logs for both engine and truck companies in several cities in southern California, I can tell you exactly how they conduct their time on duty. The average engine company in Glendale responds to 4.4 calls per 24-hour shift. The 4 of the 4.4 daily calls are for medical back up and they are not need on almost all of them. If they were needed, three additional firefighters on the engine offer more additional resources than are required. 99.99% of medical emergencies involve one person. The 0.4 call would be a fire run. 93% of fire alarms are false and 90% of fire incidents are easily extinguished with the 500 gallons aboard the engine. All of these incidents on a daily basis can be more than adequately handled by the three firefighters who are on the engine. When you have the rare and occasional large event such as an auto/train crash with multiple victims or a large working structure fire, the mutual aid system in place today can garner more than enough resources to take care of the incident.

“You’ll have to do some further research. LA County FD is NOT a Class I department.”

If you notice, I separated out LA County from the other fire departments that staff with three and are rated Class I like Culver City and Arcadia. I may have made a grammatical error by not putting a common before ‘and’, and for that I apologize if I misled you. But it is interesting that LA County FD is a highly sought after department. I know many firefighters who want to get a lateral transfer from their present department that staffs with four to go to LA County that staffs primarily with three. If it were a safety issue, why would they want to work on crews that staff with three? Answer is that they are no less safe working on a three person company than a four person company.

You might be interested to know that there are Class I Fire Departments that are all-volunteer departments. They perform at the highest level expected of any professional fire department. One is the Fallon/Churchill Volunteer Fire Department in Nevada. The other is the DuBois Volunteer Fire Department in the state of Pennsylvania. According to the ISO (the national organization that sets the Class ratings), these volunteers fight fires just as efficiently and effectively as the paid, career firefighters.

“Your figures add up to the costs of 100 firefighters. Which one of the cities you mention has that number of 4 firefighters in its current staffing roster? I’m detecting yet another exaggeration.”

I used the combined cities of Burbank, Glendale and Pasadena as a reference. They all now staff with four. If they staffed with three, the savings come to $ 20 million.

“You like to point out your so-called experts to support your claim that firefighters are overpaid and under worked.”

Those are not my experts or my words, those are the words of city managers who responded to the questionnaire posed by the city manager of Redwood City.

“I also noticed you didn’t respond to my question how given your concern for civic responsibility and fiscal management why you aren’t advocating city governments outsource law enforcement to private security firms that have the capability of being armed and taking individuals into custody. Wouldn’t that also save millions of dollars?”

As you know, 75% of all fire departments in the country are either staffed with all or mostly volunteers and only 25% have full time paid career firefighters. I am not aware of one law enforcement agency in the entire country that has all or mostly volunteer police officers. Police officers are sworn officials of the criminal justice system who are given the powers of arrest and detention and the taking of a human life, thereby depriving individuals of rights given in the constitution. I don’t see how that can be outsourced to private security companies. Fire departments, on the other hand, could be outsourced to private contractors. Historically, fire departments began as privately owned and operated businesses.

******************************************************************************************************************************************

Comment #37: Response by LA Firefighter to Comment #36 by Bruce Philpott

It would be illuminating if you talked to this campaign manager. He will tell you that he made one phone call – to the fire union president – and got the entire amount he needed to pay off his debt ($2,000) knowing he could rely on them for two reasons: 1) They have lots of money in their political war chest, and 2) This politician has voted in favor of every action by the city council that benefited the fire union. Only one call was made and that call was to the fire union president with a specific request of two-thousand dollars. That tells me there is a special relationship. You'll deny it, but, it goes with that old saying, if it looks like a duck . . . . This campaign manager is willing to talk to you and give you the whole story.

Why would it be illuminating? Because he'll confirm that a group made a political contribution? Once again you provide an anecdote with no perspective. The fire union made a $2,000 contribution to a candidate. You imply there is a wrongdoing in that action. To answer part 1. When Willie Sutton was asked why he robbed banks he replied that was where the money was. It wouldn't have made any sense for the politician to call someone he (or she) knew didn't have any money, now would it. Then you make the infamous walking like a duck comment. What is your point Bruce? Is there some type of illegal or unethical behavior occurring? You never say. I never cease to be amazed by your naiveté. I guess I'll have to give you a primer in Poli Sci 101. A candidate runs for office based upon their positions upon any number of issues and support from different constituency bases. They get elected or don't based upon that platform. If they are successful in getting elected that candidate can safely assume they were elected because they reflected the will of the people who voted for them. If they were supported by the firefighters and the people voted for them, the elected official believes the people support firefighter issues. I'm surprised no one has ever explained this to you in the past.

We seem to have developed a pattern. When I offer facts and core evidence to prove my issues you immediately loose interest and start on a personal attack of my credibility.

Bruce. You are just flat wrong on this statement. I have never, repeat never attacked you personally. I haven't made any statements that attack you as a person. I have only sought to question the veracity of your anecdotes and the concepts you put forth. If you believe that someone who questions the validity of your points and the support behind them is a personal attack it sounds like you have a problem of insecurity or are thin skinned. I am surprised you were in law enforcement.

I have to keep saying this because you keep to your script of trying to invalidate my well researched data and information. You have never asked me for the activity logs or dispatch logs showing the delayed responses, or of the consultant's report identifying all of the "failed responses". And you have refused my invitation for us to co-host a community meeting where these issues can be discussed. You seem to be very confident, but when it comes time to walk the walk, all you can do is talk. I am also surprised that you have not taken me on about the issue of staffing engines with 3 versus 4. There are so many studies you can cite that show staffing with 4 is superior to staffing with 3. That debate would be valuable to the lay readers.

I have addressed over and over that if the delayed responses are indeed factual the chief will address the issue. Earlier you stated the local media is showing interest in the story. I am sure if the threat to public safety is as dire as you claim it will be made an issue to be rectified. As far as staffing issues. there are numerous studies that show the amount of work done is greater than 25% with an additional person in addition to reduced injury rates. I'm sure if you do some research you will find them. Given your zeal for facts you'll have an open and unbiased mind in the data.

No one knows that better than your union, the IAFF, which puts forth any amount of money needed to defend, in many cases, outrageous acts with the intent of intimidating fire and city management.

Like which ones? You want to leave the impression that disciplinary action against firefighters is always warranted and never instigated by the city officials as a method of intimidation. Once again you make a slanted statement with no perspective.

I made an earlier reference to a city manager's survey of their respective fire departments. It was conducted by the city manager of Redwood City in northern California about twelve years ago. I have a copy of the summary page of the data. Nineteen city managers responded, some did not respond to each question.

Here are some entries:

Question: Is the fire department an easy or hard department to manage? Responses: Easy Dept to Manage (0 responses); Pain-in-the-Ass-Dept (8 responses).

Question: How does the fire department fit in with the other operating departments? Responses: big picture orientation (1 response); narrow perspective (14 responses).

Question: Is the fire department Integrated into the City Organization? Responses: Integrated got one vote; Stands Outside City Organization got eleven votes.

The Redwood city manager asked the responding city managers to use their own adjectives to describe their fire department in general. They responded: Under worked and over paid, tradition-tied, unchanging, petulant, costly, not innovative, ingrown, self-serving, whiners, combative, crude, well-trained, great PR, poor investment, fraternal, inflexible, traditional, closed, distant, single focused, alarmist, pro-manpower vs technology.

The frustration shown by these city managers is common in cities throughout California. There is little city managers, and for that matter, fire chiefs, can do because the fire union has the ears of the elected city council who elicit their endorsements.

Bruce. Once again you only provide a single perspective. I have known numerous individuals who have to deal with city managers in small and large locales. I have heard numerous adjectives regarding the behavior of those individuals. Typically it DOESN'T include the words integrity, honesty, or compromise. The folks involved in negotiations have yet to come back to membership after initial meetings stating the city bean counters are offering anything other than reductions in pay and take aways in benefits. Hence the confrontational nature of the process that is instigated by the city staff. I already explained politics to you earlier. You will probably want to reread for a greater understanding. It appears you've never learned how the process works.

You'll have to do some further research. LA County FD is NOT a Class 1 department. I've already addressed the issue of units staying out of their response areas for prolonged periods in previous posts. I feel no need to address it again.

I don't recall ever advocating for the closure of fire stations during any 24-hour period as you suggest. Leaving gaps in emergency service during any time of day or night does not make any sense. I agree that "citizens DESERVE to be protected 24 hours a day". I don't want citizens to be subjected to slow responses due to firefighters jogging in remote areas. And I don't feel that the taxpayers should have to fund the staffing with four in cities like Glendale, Burbank and Pasadena. At $200,000 per year cost for one position, that amounts to a savings of $20 million per year. Not a small amount.

I never said you advocated closing stations. If I did could you point me to that statement? As far as what you feel is proper staffing and what the taxpayers should fund, that is your opinion. It doesn't necessarily mean that others are obligated to believe similarly. Your figures add up to the costs of 100 firefighters. Which one of the cities you mention has that number of 4 firefighters in its current staffing roster? I'm detecting yet another exaggeration.

No challenge on the staffing issue?

Already addressed. I will once again ask that you read it.

The public can only judge when it has been given the data. I offered that opportunity with a community forum. But you rejected that, even though you seem to promote the idea of keeping the public informed. When there is such an opportunity, you turned it down. Think of the opportunity you are giving up by debating me on the merits and embarrassing me. Then you can put this whole issue to bed because at that point I will have been disgraced. What are you waiting for?

Try baiting someone else. You present your facts. I'm sure the firefighters in the cities you claim are overstaffed will present their side and the public will be the judge. I'm sure you'll then be satisfied with the outcome.

Bruce. You like to point out your so called experts to support your claim that firefighters are overpaid and underworked. Could you please detail for all of us the years of experience any of the HR experts and City Managers have working as a firefighter? Or how many years those same individuals have spent working on either an engine or a truck company doing the job. I am always impressed that individuals who have never worked as firefighters somehow know all about the job of a firefighter never having done it.

I also noticed you didn't respond to my question how given your concern for civic responsibility and fiscal management why you aren't advocating city governments outsource law enforcement to private security firms that have the capability of being armed and taking individuals into custody. Wouldn't that also save millions of dollars?

******************************************************************************************************************************************

Comment #36: Response by Bruce Philpott to Comment # 35 by LA Firefighter

“What difference would it make to me if I spoke with the campaign manager? Is this same campaign manager aware of the fact you initially accused an official he helped get elected of committing a crime. I am sure he is going to verify that a candidate called a donor and asked for a contribution. So what? Surely you can’t be that naïve on how the political process works in our country at all levels. Was the call to the fire union the only call made by the candidate?”

It would be illuminating if you talked to this campaign manager. He will tell you that he made one phone call – to the fire union president – and got the entire amount he needed to pay off his debt ($2,000) knowing he could rely on them for two reasons: 1) They have lots of money in their political war chest, and 2) This politician has voted in favor of every action by the city council that benefited the fire union. Only one call was made and that call was to the fire union president with a specific request of two-thousand dollars. That tells me there is a special relationship. You’ll deny it, but, it goes with that old saying, if it looks like a duck . . . . This campaign manager is willing to talk to you and give you the whole story.

We seem to have developed a pattern. When I offer facts and core evidence to prove my issues you immediately loose interest and start on a personal attack of my credibility. I have to keep saying this because you keep to your script of trying to invalidate my well researched data and information. You have never asked me for the activity logs or dispatch logs showing the delayed responses, or of the consultant’s report identifying all of the “failed responses”. And you have refused my invitation for us to co-host a community meeting where these issues can be discussed. You seem to be very confident, but when it comes time to walk the walk, all you can do is talk. I am also surprised that you have not taken me on about the issue of staffing engines with 3 versus 4. There are so many studies you can cite that show staffing with 4 is superior to staffing with 3. That debate would be valuable to the lay readers.

“You may also be surprised that disciplinary actions take money.”

No one knows that better than your union, the IAFF, which puts forth any amount of money needed to defend, in many cases, outrageous acts with the intent of intimidating fire and city management.

In reference to my comment regarding the fire culture being outside the norm in local government, you stated, “Considered way outside the “norm” by who? You? Who else? Once again you make a claim with no factual support.”

I made an earlier reference to a city manager’s survey of their respective fire departments. It was conducted by the city manager of Redwood City in northern California about twelve years ago. I have a copy of the summary page of the data. Nineteen city managers responded, some did not respond to each question.

Here are some entries:

Question: Is the fire department an easy or hard department to manage? Responses: Easy Dept to Manage (0 responses); Pain-in-the-Ass-Dept (8 responses).

Question: How does the fire department fit in with the other operating departments? Responses: big picture orientation (1 response); narrow perspective (14 responses).

Question: Is the fire department Integrated into the City Organization? Responses: Integrated got one vote; Stands Outside City Organization got eleven votes.

“You put forth a model of protection for a community that has yet to be adopted by anyone to prove its value. Do you know why no one is willing to try it Bruce? Because those tasked with leadership positions in a city are not willing to bet the lives and property of the citizens they have sworn to protect on a “pie in the sky” idea. They realize the citizens DESERVE to be protected 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. Your ideas would put them at risk.”

I am having a disconnect again in this discussion. I have only advocated for two things: (1) canceling a policy that permits firefighters to drive to remote parks and other locations that are out of their fire districts to jog. I have samples of runs from these remote areas to emergency calls and they all fall into the category of “failed incidents”, and (2) I discuss the issue of staffing engine companies with three rather than four, like Los Angeles County and other fire departments that are rated Class I. I don’t recall ever advocating for the closure of fire stations during any 24-hour period as you suggest. Leaving gaps in emergency service during any time of day or night does not make any sense. I agree that “citizens DESERVE to be protected 24 hours a day”. I don’t want citizens to be subjected to slow responses due to firefighters jogging in remote areas. And I don’t feel that the taxpayers should have to fund the staffing with four in cities like Glendale, Burbank and Pasadena. At $200,000 per year cost for one position, that amounts to a savings of $20 million per year. Not a small amount.

No challenge on the staffing issue?

“And, yes the public is always the ultimate judge. And it is for that reason that public safety agencies exist in their current form”

******************************************************************************************************************************************

Comment #35: Response by LA Firefighter to Comment #34 by Bruce Philpott

When I left the city council chambers last week, the fire chief followed me out and wanted to talk with me. He asked me questions about my presentations and appeared very interested in what I was presenting, although he said he wasn't planning on responding until I had completed my presentations on all of the material. Several days ago I spoke with a colleague of mine. He said that he had a conversation with a city council member earlier that day. The council member referenced my presentations and told this colleague that he has been inundated with calls from firefighters requesting that he ignore my presentations, claiming that the city council should not trust what I say. Gee, this sounds strangely familiar, doesn't it Mr. LA Firefighter. Fortunately, the city council member told at least one of them, "you make the big bucks, you can afford to fight your own fights". If you want, I will get you in touch with this person who spoke directly to the council member and who relayed the story to me.

Yet another unnamed colleague. Geez Bruce, you continue to amaze me with people whose names need to be protected. You try to give a false impression that firefighters are out there ready to take retribution (like some type of mafia goons) at a moments notice. I have no idea what the Council Member's remarks reference given that you once again provide little context. If the issue of delayed response is as prevalent as you claim I am assured both the City Council and the Chief will rectify the matter. I'm sure you will then be content and cease your continued scurrilous remarks about firefighting and firefighters.

Were you falling asleep when you made this entry? You have accused me of slandering a council member and fire union chief, and I might add that you used the right phraseology when you referred to the fire union head as chief, because you do know how much power they wield in the organization. I have gone out of my way to protect the identity of these people. How can I slander someone that I have never identified? But I did offer you the contact information of the campaign manager who told me the story. You haven't shown any interest in pursuing that. When you are confronted with specific facts you seem to move on in another direction. It's pretty clear how you have chosen to debate these issues.

Bruce. These are your comments you put forth to support your position. You initially claimed the Council Member called the fire union and requested a campaign donation from city property as an indication of how business is done. If the person who will verify this story wasn't aware of the fact that you were accusing them of a crime I can't do or say anything to you that will impress upon you the seriousness of your remarks. Do you believe the individuals in question don't know you are speaking about them? What difference would it make to me if I spoke with the campaign manager? Is this same campaign manager aware of the fact you initially accused an official he helped get elected of committing a crime. I'm sure he is going to verify that a candidate called a donor and asked for a contribution. So what? Surely you can't be that naïve on how the political process works in our country at all levels.

The problem I have is the fact that a city council member, in order to relieve campaign debt, rather than conduct a mail campaign to retire his debt, he simply calls the fire union president and asks (inferred instructed) him to deposit an exact amount of money in his campaign account. That, my friend is getting more than a little of the camels nose under the proverbial tent. Think about what kind of a relationship had developed prior to that phone call.

Was the call to the fire union the only call made by the candidate? I bet it wasn't. I'd be willing to bet the candidate made calls to any number of individuals requesting debt relief. I'd also bet the POA was called as well. Here's a newsflash for you. Candidates and elected officials call people all the time requesting donations. Or they hire professional fundraisers. Phone calls are cheaper than mail campaigns. From what little I know of the political process is that candidates prefer to be as economical as possible. Perhaps you should put forth a regulation that campaign debt relief and contributions can ONLY be solicited via mail programs. Let me know how much support you get for that idea.

What is the point of your nose in the tent comment? You keep trying to imply some type of nefarious or insidious activity as a result of campaign donations. I am constantly amazed at either your statements of implied wrongdoing based upon your value system where no wrongdoing is occurring. I'm sure you recognize that political contributions fall under 1^st Ammendment protection of the US Constitution. Do you believe there are groups who shouldn't be allowed to participate in the political process? I wouldn't be surprised if you did.

First, I did not present anything. I obtained a copy of the investigation after the fact.

Then it sounds like your beef is with those who didn't pursue disciplinary action. Did the mentioned activity continue after that incident? You may be also surprised to learn that disciplinary actions take money. Few city managers are willing to commit to that level if a situation can be rectified through other means. You may also be surprised to learn that city governments don't have unlimited amounts of money to spend on issues. Hence there is a motivation to rectify matters at little or no cost. Maybe you enjoy paying attorneys unnecessarily. Most people I know don't.

This is a good illustration of why the fire department culture is considered way outside of the norm. Had that kind of activity come to my attention when I served as police commander or chief, the responsible people would have been disciplined severely. But I expect you to label this as another Philpott false claim. Every time I offer you the opportunity to review the actual documents, you show no interest. You simply use the same boring adjectives in your feeble attempt to discredit me.

Considered way outside the "norm" by who? You? Who else? Once again you make a claim with no factual support. I don't need boring adjectives to discredit you. You do it all on your own. The biggest reason I have for not wanting to engage in a debate with you is I've read your missive "To Protect and Save." It too is filled with unsubstantiated anecdotes and rumors you claim to be true with no factual background. I see no value added to giving you a public forum. You put forth a model of protection for a community that has yet to be adopted by anyone to prove its value. Do you know why no one is willing to try it Bruce? Because those tasked with leadership positions in a city are not willing to bet the lives and property of the citizens they have sworn to protect on a "pie in the sky" idea. They realize the citizens DESERVE to be protected 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. Your ideas would put them at risk.

But I did like your statement, "Once again I have to state if matters were as dire as you claim, you would have a great case for you to take to the media". Two media outlets have contacted me in the last week and will write and publish what they feel is in the public's interest. They will be able to investigate the validity of my claims by looking at the original documents, something you have shown no interest in doing. Why would you show any interest in factual documents? It's easier to try and dismiss me as someone who has nothing more than "false claims". The public will be the ultimate judge.

I will be interested in reading what is written in the public's interest. And yes the public is always the ultimate judge. And it is for that reason that public safety agencies exist in their current form.

******************************************************************************************************************************************

Comment #34: Response by Bruce Philpott to Comment # 33 by LA Firefighter

“You state the fire chief is going to respond to your presentations. I’m sure if he counters your arguments as easily as I have done you will start claiming some type of ‘lone gunman behind the grassy knoll’ conspiracy.”

When I left the city council chambers last week, the fire chief followed me out and wanted to talk with me. He asked me questions about my presentations and appeared very interested in what I was presenting, although he said he wasn’t planning on responding until I had completed my presentations on all of the material. Several days ago I spoke with a colleague of mine. He said that he had a conversation with a city council member earlier that day. The council member referenced my presentations and told this colleague that he has been inundated with calls from firefighters requesting that he ignore my presentations, claiming that the city council should not trust what I say. Gee, this sounds strangely familiar, doesn’t it Mr. LA Firefighter. Fortunately, the city council member told at least one of them, “you make the big bucks, you can afford to fight your own fights”. If you want, I will get you in touch with this person who spoke directly to the council member and who relayed the story to me.

“Secondly you should apologize to both the Council Member and the fire union chief you have been slandering. Thirdly, what is the problem with that (referring to unions making campaign contributions to local political offices).”

Were you falling asleep when you made this entry? You have accused me of slandering a council member and fire union chief, and I might add that you used the right phraseology when you referred to the fire union head as chief, because you do know how much power they wield in the organization. I have gone out of my way to protect the identity of these people. How can I slander someone that I have never identified? But I did offer you the contact information of the campaign manager who told me the story. You haven’t shown any interest in pursuing that. When you are confronted with specific facts you seem to move on in another direction. It’s pretty clear how you have chosen to debate these issues.

Regarding my statement about union activity at a fire station, you stated, “Perhaps the chief reviewed the evidence you presented and concluded you were in error”.

First, I did not present anything. I obtained a copy of the investigation after the fact. I found it in my files today. It is a memorandum from the investigator to one of the fire captains who was assigned to the fire station in question when the event occurred. In the “RE:” column it states: “Union Work”. The memo states, “Per our conversation, this memo is in response to the use of stations phones, for union political activities. I investigated the area of concerns that you had voiced about [name withheld] and the political activities conducted from station 32 during business hours. The city manager has made it clear that this sort of activity will not be conducted while on duty. Once investigate, this in fact was occurring, and [name withheld] is fully aware of the violation to city policy. My follow-up conversation with [name withheld] was verbal in nature and mentioned above policy violations that were established for all employees of the city. [name withheld] realized the error and assured me that it would not occur again.”

My file also has a copy of one of the District Walk Sheets, Phone Bank, and Election Day forms used by the firefighters in their planning of political activities. It also tells the firefighters the kinds of clothing to wear when walking the precincts. It also states, “If you cannot make your commitment please call [name withheld] at station 32 or at home [phone number withheld].” But the area code is in another county which is not unusual for firefighters. The second form is titled, “Local 809 (local chapter of the IAFF) Political Activity Sheet”. This form lists the union members who have signed up.

I am most disappointed in reading that you have turned down my offer to jointly host a community meeting to discuss the issues of response times and staffing. I am not shocked because I have made that offer before and no one has yet taken me up on it. What is it that makes you afraid? Is it knowing that the public might understand a little more about how the system works and how it could improve?

But I did like your statement, “Once again I have to state if matters were as dire as you claim, you would have a great case for you to take to the media”. Two media outlets have contacted me in the last week and will write and publish what they feel is in the public’s interest. They will be able to investigate the validity of my claims by looking at the original documents, something you have shown no interest in doing. Why would you show any interest in factual documents? It’s easier to try and dismiss me as someone who has nothing more than “false claims”. The public will be the ultimate judge.

******************************************************************************************************************************************

Comment #33: Response by LA Firefighter to Comments # 30, #31 and #32 by Bruce Philpott

Sorry, LA Firefighter, but a lot of the public is taking me seriously, based upon the factual evidence. They are wondering what facts the fire department will present in response. Eventually we'll know because the city manager said that the fire chief will respond to my presentations. We are all looking forward to that, and for his credibility I hope that he doesn't ignore the data because the public expects more from an interim fire chief who is earning $235,000 per year.

When you state " a lot of the public is taking me seriously", how many? What is their number? Yet again you make a sweeping statement with no context. Is it 10? 50? 1,000? 10,000? What is the percent of the citizens in a given community you believe are taking you seriously? You state the fire chief is going to respond to your presentations. I'm sure if he counters your arguments as easily as I have done you will start claiming some type of "lone gunman behind the grassy knoll" conspiracy.

First off you admit your statement was in error. Secondly you should apologize to both the Council Member and the fire union chief you have been slandering. Thirdly, what is the problem with that? That is how the political process in our nation operates. Candidates request financial support from interest groups all the time from private business locations or residences. You want to imply that because a politico has accepted a donation from a union or group they are automatically beholden to all the demands of that group. What is interesting is you made a statement you were claiming as fact and has now turned out to be in error. What other errors have you made in making claims of alleged illegal activity?

I need to remind you of Jesse Unruh's remarks regarding campaign contributions

"If you can't take their money, drink their liquor, f**k their women, and then come in here the next day and vote against them, you don't belong here."

Can you positively prove there is a direct correlation between campaign contributions and contractual votes? That's a lot of water to carry and you proved to everyone you aren't Gunga Din. Has there ever been an issue where the firefighters were denied an issue from a candidate they supported? I know we in LA have asked for far more in compensation and have had to settle for less. Would you like to wager that is the case in just about any other city as well?

All I can tell you LA Firefighter is that the evidence was presented to the fire chief. I assumed he would handle the incident properly. Who he shared this incident with I have no idea, but I do know that none of the firefighters who were involved received any kind of discipline.

Perhaps the chief reviewed the evidence you presented and concluded you were in error. Remember you earlier posted that the City Council members were conducting political work from city property. And as I asked earlier. If you believe there wasn't a suitable reaction, what is stopping you or stopped you from taking your case to the local media?

On a related note, I might call your attention to an on-going dispute between a local chapter of the I.A.F.F. and the city. It is in Kalispell, Montana. I'll first quote the city manager, Jim Patrick, "It is not appropriate to be conducting union meetings or union activities on city time, using city equipment". Charles Harball, the city attorney said, "a degree of liability exists for the city when union information is stored on city property that could harm the city's position in collective bargaining – and since no other unions are allowed to conduct business on city property, the IAFF shouldn't be either." In response, Ricky Walsh, vice president for the IAFF Seventh District, said, "because firefighters work 24 hours a day, unlike other city employees, that the union is allowed more leeway in conducting business during city time and on city property".

I won't comment on this statement since I don't live in Kalispell. I've learned enough from reading the LA Times and Daily News over the years to know there is usually much more to a story than what is printed. More importantly, you've stated repeatedly how your primary focus is to deal with delayed response times. Can you tell me how an intra city issue in Montana relates to your alleged claim of delayed response in Glendale? Focus, Bruce, focus.

Human resource people can and do make comparisons of work and skills that are required in a public sector job to one in the private sector. They have to gain the knowledge of the training and skills required, complexity of work, specific functions, risk to injury, workload, etc. Some have developed a science around this. I have spoken with several of these folks and they are shocked at the compensation firefighters get in comparison with other types of work forces, both in and out of the private sector, with similar or even more responsibilities.

I have to ask who are these people? Once again you make a sweeping statement with no background or substance. Long ago my captain for whom I worked while I was on probation told me I wasn't paid for what I do, but for what I might be asked to do. Do the HR "experts" you've spoken with take those factors into consideration? And I also ask if those same "experts" have done similar analysis for your profession and the compensation? I would be interested in seeing both the criteria used and its conclusions.

Everyone is drawn to one kind of occupation or field of interest, and if they are lucky, they actually fulfill their ambitions. I know people who have made their business on the ocean in small craft and wouldn't have it any other way. They wouldn't want to be a firefighter. I know firefighters who wouldn't want to be a fisherman or pilot. We each seek out our own types of occupations, driven by our talents and interest. Isn't it a little contrite to infer that only one occupation places themselves in harms way when no one else does for the public good. How much do you enjoy eating a good lobster, crab or shrimp dinner? Those guys put themselves at great personal risk to bring affordable seafood to our markets. They do so with a risk that is statistically many times greater than yours.

A minimum wage clerk at a 24 hour neighborhood market is many times more likely to die at work than a police officer. The last time I checked, police officer fatalities were about 19 per 100,000. That is about 6 more per 100,000 as compared to firefighters. Again, this data is several years old but the information is readily available through the Federal Bureau of Labor Statistics and the National Safety Council. I believe the average fatality in the workplace for the hundreds of occupations listed, is about 11 per 100,000. Last time I looked, firefighters were around 14 and cops came in at 19. Statistically police and fire are not occupations that have large rates of death compared to many.

Those individuals perform the functions in the professions you mention for the wages determined by their employer and agreed upon by the employee. Just like I do, and you did when you were in law enforcement. Other than that I once again can't ascertain why these statements have anything to do with the shortcomings you claim in the GFD.

I agree that if police and fire personnel didn't come to work, things eventually would get pretty nasty. In the context of contemporary America, your observation and question have no meaning. But the "social fabric disintegrating" thing is quaint and, although irrelevant, is part of the PR package of the IAFF. It works for the uninitiated, including local politicians.

I didn't say the social fabric would disintegrate. Reread what I wrote. I wrote that it would be different. I will leave it up to the others reading this exchange to determine on their own if their lives and their surroundings would be better or worse.

I couldn't be more sincere about you and I co-hosting a town meeting kind of public event. And, I am on record here that I agree that only two subjects will be discussed: response times and staffing. I will even offer some more structure to the proposal.

Bruce, you can't even bring verified facts to an internet forum. I doubt a public debate would be any more productive. Once again I have to state if matters were as dire as you claim, you would have a great case for you (and your mythical group of many supporters) to take to the media. The fact that you haven't done that says volumes about the validity of your claims. If you have taken it to the media and they haven't printed or broadcast any of it, that fact says even more.

*****************************************************************************************************************************************

Comment #32: Response by Bruce Philpott to Comment # 29 by LA Firefighter

Regarding your Comment # 29, there is nothing of substance for which to respond. In the face of the best evidence in court, being the actual documents that show delayed responses and a consultant’s report that affirms them, what better evidence do you think that I must provide. To the clear thinker, I have provided the evidence. You simply choose to continue to claim, “I challenge his assertions and claims to be provided with something other than hearsay. Until he puts something on the tale other than his conjecture he’ll never be taken seriously. Sorry, LA Firefighter, but a lot of the public is taking me seriously, based upon the factual evidence. They are wondering what facts the fire department will present in response. Eventually we’ll know because the city manager said that the fire chief will respond to my presentations. We are all looking forward to that, and for his credibility I hope that he doesn’t ignore the data because the public expects more from an interim fire chief who is earning $235,000 per year.

******************************************************************************************************************************************

Comment #31: Response by Bruce Philpott to Comment # 28 by LA Firefighter

I want to give you an update on the campaign manager for the city councilman who called the president of the fire union, asked for and got two thousand dollars deposited in his reelection account.

I had a conversation with this person yesterday and he is willing to tell you the story over the phone or in email anytime you would like. He will tell you that the councilman made the phone call from either his home or office and not at city hall. The council member asked the fire union president if he would deposit two thousand dollars for his campaign so that he, the candidate, could cover some end of campaign debt. Apparently council members for the city of Pasadena do not have offices, but their paid field reps do have offices in city hall. So that renders the contribution out of the realm of criminal and into the realm of local politics as usual, with city council members being funneled with contributions on the large from unions with huge war chests. That allows them to gain direct access to the local political body anytime they want to trump any attempts by the city manager or fire chief to impose streamline work systems and operations that would better serve the public. Let me know if you want to speak to him directly.

******************************************************************************************************************************************

Comment #30: Response by Bruce Philpott to Comment # 27 by LA Firefighter

“Once again you claim to have significant proof of criminal wrongdoing (he is referencing the documents I have proving Pasadena, CA. firefighters were planning their part of a reelection campaign of a local city council member while on-duty and in their fire station) yet you have done nothing to report this to proper authorities who would investigate and possibly prosecute or report this episode to the media for the attending scrutiny that would most certainly occur.”

On a related note, I might call your attention to an on-going dispute between a local chapter of the I.A.F.F. and the city. It is in Kalispell, Montana. I’ll first quote the city manager, Jim Patrick, “It is not appropriate to be conducting union meetings or union activities on city time, using city equipment”. Charles Harball, the city attorney said, “a degree of liability exists for the city when union information is stored on city property that could harm the city’s position in collective bargaining – and since no other unions are allowed to conduct business on city property, the IAFF shouldn’t be either.” In response, Ricky Walsh, vice president for the IAFF Seventh District, said, “because firefighters work 24 hours a day, unlike other city employees, that the union is allowed more leeway in conducting business during city time and on city property”. The article can be found by going to

www.flatheadbeacon.com/articles/article/kalispell_firefighters_remove_amenities_in_dispute.

“What value does a private sector human resource put on the duties of an occupation that doesn’t exist in the private sector? Municipal fire protection doesn’t exist in the private sector for the simple fact it isn’t profitable.”

Human resource people can and do make comparisons of work and skills that are required in a public sector job to one in the private sector. They have to gain the knowledge of the training and skills required, complexity of work, specific functions, risk to injury, workload, etc. Some have developed a science around this. I have spoken with several of these folks and they are shocked at the compensation firefighters get in comparison with other types of work forces, both in and out of the private sector, with similar or even more responsibilities.

“While lobster fishing or roofing have a significant higher number of injuries or even fatalities there are two key differences between them as an occupation and public safety. Public safety professionals are trained to and have a duty to respond to emergencies that lobster fishermen and roofers (as an example) would be causing them to run away.”

selves in harms way when no one else does for the public good. How much do you enjoy eating a good lobster, crab or shrimp dinner? Those guys put themselves at great personal risk to bring affordable seafood to our markets. They do so with a risk that is statistically many times greater than yours.

“I have spoken with my neighbor who is an OC (Orange County) deputy sheriff and he is hearing the same arguments you are making about firefighters from local elected officials and their supporters that law enforcement isn’t as dangerous as other lesser paying occupations.”

“My response to them is what happens to the fabric of society when lobster fishermen and roofers don’t show up for work for a day, or a week? And then ask yourself what happens or what might happen if public safety personnel didn’t respond? The social fabric as we know it might be dramatically different. Don’t you agree?”

I agree that if police and fire personnel didn’t come to work, things eventually would get pretty nasty. In the context of contemporary America, your observation and question have no meaning. But the “social fabric disintegrating” thing is quaint and, although irrelevant, is part of the PR package of the IAFF. It works for the uninitiated, including local politicians.

“I doubt the sincerity of your opening statement (to co-host a public conference on response times and staffing) since you bring up compensation, pension obligations, hiring practices, alleged criminal activity by firefighters personnel on city property and any number of other issues that have absolutely nothing to do with response times. Those are your statements and arguments. Not mine”.

I couldn’t be more sincere about you and I co-hosting a town meeting kind of public event. And, I am on record here that I agree that only two subjects will be discussed: response times and staffing. I will even offer some more structure to the proposal. We both agree upon a panel of Glendale citizens who have no bias whatsoever for or against the fire department. We both spend fifteen minutes laying out our positions. The panel then gets a chance to ask questions. The narrator could be selected from the Coordinating Council of the Glendale Homeowner’s Association. It is a very respected group of citizens. Then questions could be opened up to the rest of the attending public. I can arrange the location and underwriting for the small amount of expenses. I think it could be a watershed event for the public here in Glendale. They would go away with a more firm understanding of how fire departments operate and what kind of alternative methods are available for their consideration. We would be performing a responsible civic duty.

If you choose not to take me up on my offer, I have an alternative. You can arrange for the Glendale fire union to co-sponsor the event. They could have one of their members present their case to the public and I would present my case and let the public become that much more informed about a vital service that is being provided by the City of Glendale. If you say yes, we can exchange phone numbers and get started on the planning. This can be set up in just a few weeks and would be very timely because of my presentations on these two issues: response times and staffing that are being presented to the city council.

The narrator can control the topics and their content. He would be instructed to disallow any issues that are not pertinent to the two topics under discussion.

******************************************************************************************************************************************

Comment #29: LA Firefighter’s Response to the Posting of Segment 4 of Bruce Philpott’s New Fire Models

(Reference: Bruce Philpott, New Fire Models, Segment 4: Reduce Overtime Costs By $6 Million Annually )

What a surprise. Bruce recommends a reduction in staffing.

He hasn't responded to my latest replies. I'm not surprised at that either.

I challenge his assertions and claims to be provided with something other than hearsay. Until he puts something on the table other than his conjecture he'll never be taken seriously.

******************************************************************************************************************************************

Comment #28: Response by LA Firefighter to Comment # 25 by Bruce Philpott

I am not sure what you mean by someone who committed a federal crime. What statue are you referring to? If I may refresh your memory, the campaign manager for the city councilman observed the city councilman pick up the phone and call the fire union president and asked him for a specific dollar amount for a campaign contribution ($2500 in this particular case). The city does not have a campaign finance law that sets a limit on what people or, in this case, a fire union, can donate. Does that constitute a federal crime? (If this occurred on city property using city resources as you claim I have already detailed the answer to this question. I'm surprised you are unaware of this legal limitation to political activity)I have not done the research as you have. Would you please furnish me with that information and, if true, I will initiate a complaint to the proper authorities. In the meantime, I accept your invitation to meet on this subject and, yes, you may record the entire event. Video it if you prefer. I would like to go over these egregious issues of firefighters working on political campaigns while on-duty. I will have the former campaign manager at this meeting to relate his story. But, I have an idea to expand upon this meeting. Why don't we jointly sponsor a public forum here in Glendale and discuss response times and staffing policies as well as political actions associated with fire unions. The forum would be financed by local Glendale citizens who care about the services they receive from the city. You can bring several members of the Glendale Fire Department as well. If we agreed to host a series of community forums we could cover a lot of important subjects. The public would gain further insight into the fire department's operations. If you agree to this conference or series of conferences, I will give you my phone number and we can start to plan the event(s) as soon as possible.

See my commentary and link to the Hatch Act. FYI. You may have noticed I supported my factual claims (like the Hatch Act) with links proving I'm not making anything up. You are supporting your claims with unsubstantiated anecdotes you claim are true with provable facts yet you haven't contacted the local media or officials like a responsible enforcement agency (ie. the FPPC, the FEC, DOJ, or a local DA's office) . That is a very quizzical lack of action on both yours and your supporters. It says legions about both the validity and veracity of your assertions

******************************************************************************************************************************************

Comment #27: Response by LA Firefighter to Comment # 24 by Bruce Philpott

You may want to wait until you have read my next two presentation pieces to the Glendale City Council that addresses the issue of staffing before you make further comments. I suspect you will have a lot more input at that point.

Can't wait.

In response to your lengthy paragraph defending the San Diego Firefighters.

They, along with the police officers, have the right to protect their compensation and benefit packages that are bound by contract, even though it may bankrupt the city. Is this in the best spirit of civic responsibility?

Yet you only mention the fire department. Can not the same claim be made of other city departments? Specifically your colleagues in the SDPD? I won't get into what is in the best spirit of civic responsibility since I (nor you) wasn't privy to the negotiations that led to this fiscal challenge.

Your next observation ties costs to fund police services with that of the fire service and you ask why I am only addressing the fire portion of the issue.

I have never stated that the full cost burden of police officers to taxpayers is any different than the cost of firefighters. They both get about the same compensation and benefit packages and most are tied to the PERS Public Safety Pension system that allows them to received 90% of the highest paid year as the start of their retirement, with annual cost of living adjustments. By running the numbers, the public can get a glimpse of the huge financial burden that awaits local governments in the future. Take the following example: a Glendale fire captain or police sergeant retires at age 51 after 30 years of service. His salary for purposes of determining his highest twelve months, without overtime, will be set based upon a number of bonuses and incentive pays that are tied to his base salary. But, today it will be somewhere in the range of $125,000 to $132,000. At 90%, beginning retirement pay will be about $117,000 per year. Using today's dollars, the retired fire captain or police sergeant will receive a pension amount of over $3.5 million dollars before he is expected to die. And, his spouse will continue receiving these benefits until that person dies. Women live longer than men by several years and most firefighters and cops are male, in fact, all of them are males in the Glendale Fire Department with the exception of one paramedic. Since you have many more females in your department, are they a liability or an asset?

I'm not sure what point you are making about pension obligations. The concept of a pension is to pay a negotiated amount acquired through the collective bargaining process. The amount is only important as it relates to what the city negotiator was authorized to give to the bargaining unit affected as being affordable by the financial gurus in the city. As far as female firefighters being a liability or an asset that is not my prerogative to determine. What is your purpose in asking that question? I am not responsible for hiring. The city HR department has the responsibility of determining who is and isn't qualified to be firefighters as determined by the statutes applicable. i can only assume you believe female public safety professionals shouldn't be allowed due to the fiscal liability.

To paraphrase your next comments regarding the influence of the fire unions over local politicians. You claim, "Anecdotal with no substantiation. I have to question the validity of this claim".

I have spoken with both of them personally. This does not constitute hearsay because I am hearing directly from the principles and not a third party who would be considered hearsay. The law even protects direct communications between a principle and a witness from being presented in a court of law. It is known as the privilege doctrine and includes communications between the principle's spouses, attorney, minister and doctor.

The claim you make is one of an individual requesting campaign contributions from a city hall office using city property. Specifically you stated,

The city councilman picked up the phone in his city hall office and direct dialed the president of the fire union. The councilman then asked the union president to deposit $2500 into his campaign account by that afternoon.

For your information, the above mentioned activity is a federal violation of the Hatch Act (http://www.osc.gov/hatchact.htm) which prohibits the use of public resources for political purposes. I am puzzled that you being a member of the law enforcement community who is also as politically engaged is not aware of this limitation and potential criminal consequences. Therefore I would ask that anyone you are willing to put forth that could substantiate the validity of this anecdote be willing to commit to a record that would make them liable for either slandering the union president mentioned or be willing to subject themselves to federal investigations and potential prosecution.

Let me give you one more incident that goes further than just citing the stories that were relayed to me directly by the principles involved. I have all documents proving it and I would be pleased to be able to show them to you. Several years ago, Pasadena firefighters were caught planning and executing a local city council campaign out of one of their fire stations, Station 34, to be exact. The on-duty firefighters had data sheets on voters and precinct maps spread out in the station house. They were planning precinct coverage and assigning firefighters to walking the political districts of the politicians they endorsed. This activity was being conducted in the open and was eventually shut down by an ethical fire captain who had the good judgment to put a stop to it. If you are interested, I have all of the internal documents from the Pasadena Fire Department that acknowledges that this practice was occurring. Unlike the police department that would have exercised severe penalties for the personnel involved, none of the firefighters involved received any kind of discipline. This is another anecdotal story of how the culture in the fire service tolerates and allows behavior that would not be tolerated in any other department.

Once again you claim to have significant proof of criminal wrongdoing yet you have done nothing to report this to proper authorities who would investigate and possibly prosecute or report this episode to the media for the attending scrutiny that would most certainly occur.

You draw an analogy to the value of firefighters and a military pilot who was a college friend of yours and you make the claim that supply and demand do not or should not apply to either the pilot or firefighters.

The military pilot who flies the most advanced planes in the world has the responsibility of protecting the entire free world.

Bruce. You miss my point completely. I used the analogy of my friend who is a pilot to discuss your comments about the numbers of applicants for firefighter positions. You implied that compensation for firefighters was not in equilibrium (using supply and demand concepts) due to the high number of applicants that occur when a municipality announces a hiring. First off, numerous individuals will not pass the accompanying testing process given even the low requirements for hiring which are the same for law enforcement. Over 18, a US citizen, no felony convictions, and HS diploma. My point being there are also numerous individuals who could fly the advanced airplanes you describe and be willing to do it for less for nothing other than the thrill of operating the machine involved. Yet the USAF believes it is proper to have the more experienced individual at a higher cost for that position. My point being that your examples of applicants per opening may be a valid argument for selling inanimate objects or commodities but not a valid argument for compensation for numerous occupations. i hope this helps to clarify the point for you.

I have run the scenario of firefighters training and daily responsibilities to private sector human resource experts and they are shocked. They see a clear disconnect between the compensation and benefits of a firefighter in Glendale and the training and value they bring to the citizens.

What value does a private sector human resource put on the duties of an occupation that doesn't exist in the private sector? Municipal fire protection doesn't exist in the private sector for the simple fact it isn't profitable. Witness Rural Metro leaving the city of Scottsdale. What value do human resources experts (experts according to whom) place upon the ability to respond to almost any emergency and be willing to place one's life and limb at risk to protect others? I could easily make the claim that firefighters save lives while an incident is occurring. And I could easily say the majority of law enforcement work as being the front end of the criminal justice system doesn't extend beyond arriving after an incident has occurred to write a report that may or may not stand up to legal scrutiny. I would ask those same human resources experts to analyze the skills needed (report writing) to perform the majority of law enforcement work and comment on the level of compensation versus the training needed. If we are going to use the value of similar occupations and their compensation in the private sector one could easily argue that any municipality could also outsource their law enforcement to any number of private security firms whose personnel are both armed and legally capable of taking an individual into custody. Right? Do you believe that would or wouldn't benefit a city financially? Given your previous statements about compensation and civic responsibility I am very surprised you do are not advocating this as a remedy for any city's fiscal difficulties. Especially given that the lion's share of all city budgets are its law enforcement cost center.

Firefighters have often countered that they should receive this high level of compensation because, as former state fire union president Dan Terry said several years ago, firefighters are paid well because their profession is extremely risky and it has the highest fatalities of any workforce. If that were the actual case, we both could make a stronger claim for firefighters to receive a high level of compensation. But the problem is that it is not the case. Firefighter deaths in the USA rank about average for occupational fatalities per 100,000 in the workforce. The highest category of deaths to firefighters in the workplace is due to heart attacks that occur during sleep or leisure. Next are other deaths due to strokes and other causes associated with poor physical health. The third cause is due to traffic collisions. You have to get down to the fifth reason for firefighter deaths to find they occur on the fire ground. This number, although tragic, is a relatively small number in comparison to the overall deaths in the workplace. When using that figure (deaths associated with fighting fires) separately to compare with the rest of the workforce like construction, driving vehicles and trucks, firefighting is one of the safest occupations. The occupations that people want to stay away from are commercial fishing, mining, logging, piloting small aircraft, construction workers of all kinds and truck drivers. All of them are many times for likely to die at work than firefighters.

I don't know how long ago Dan Terry made those statements. I would agree they are not valid in the raw context. I have to counter with similar support for other public safety agencies. While lobster fishing or roofing have a significant higher number of injuries or even fatalities there are two key differences between them as an occupation and public safety. Public safety professionals are trained to and have a duty to respond to emergencies that lobster fishermen and roofers (as an example) would be causing them to run away. I have spoken with my neighbor who is an OC deputy sheriff and he is hearing the same arguments you are making about firefighters from local elected officials and their supporters that law enforcement isn't as dangerous as other lesser paying occupations. My response to them is what happens to the fabric of society when lobster fishermen and roofers don't show up for work for a day, or a week? And then ask yourself what happens or what might happen if public safety personnel didn't respond? The social fabric as we know it might be dramatically different. Don't you agree?

There is one single focus of my claims. That is to remove a policy in the Glendale Fire Department that I have documented as being responsible for many delayed emergency responses that can have life-threatening consequences. It is interesting that you have not challenged my credibility regarding the dispatch logs that prove the existence of these unjustified delays. That is the thrust of my campaign at this point. So your remarks that I have presented "unsubstantiated claims" do not appear to refer to my topic of focus. I understand your role is to discredit me regarding my advocacy for establishing better practices in the fire service. You will have ample new issues in the near future to challenge me.

Maybe we don't agree on a lot of this subject matter, but at least it is offering the public some greater understanding that may help them to form their opinions, and for that I commend you.

I doubt the sincerity of your opening statement since you bring up compensation, pension obligations, hiring practices, alleged criminal activity by firefighter personnel on city property and any number of other issues that have absolutely nothing to do with response times. Those are your statements and arguments. Not mine.

******************************************************************************************************************************************

Comment #26: Response by LA Firefighter to Comment # 23 by Bruce Philpott

Why are you concerned with me "posting my sources of verification", referring to the group of fire chiefs that I met with over a five year period? I have repeatedly given the reasons, citing the specific language of fear of termination by the Los Angeles Area Fire Chiefs. Again, you take the tactic of trying to attack the messenger. If I give you one or more names, you will simply call the fire union in those cities where the fire chief served and get all of the mud you can and then throw it against the proverbial wall, in a further attempt to discredit the messenger. What would that accomplish other than to suit your interest of deflecting the focus from better practices in providing critical public safety services. If you throw enough mud you will achieve your goal of redirecting the readers' attention. I won't be a party to that deflection effort; I want to remain focused on life safety issues for citizens.

Bruce. I am only concerned with your sources because you make the claim there is support for your issue within the fire service yet they are not willing to be made public. Since these individuals are not willing to come forth I have to believe they are willing to accept the status quo as acceptable. If they truly believe the system is as dysfunctional as you claim and are not willing to come forth and address the problem I believe they lack integrity or the courage of their convictions. I find it quite interesting/humorous they hide behind a retired police chief.

I have posted my sources for verification on the issue of the subject matter under discussion: data that clearly shows delayed response times due to firefighters jogging in remote areas of their fire district. You have already acknowledged that this is unacceptable if it actually adds time to emergency responses. Well, it clearly does. I have supplied the factual evidence in the form of dispatch logs. I just reviewed a fifth randomly selected dispatch log of an emergency response with firefighters responding from Brand Park while jogging. This fifth incident posts another "Failed Incident" as defined by the Glendale Fire Department's consultant. 100% of these randomly selected responses are classified as failed incidents, or in other words, inexcusable and unnecessary delays to life-threatening medical crisis. Why aren't you more interested in examining these documents, or challenging me on their legitimacy and accuracy than to demand the names of fire chiefs who assisted me in developing this data? It is not pertinent to the issue. Either I have the data or I don't. And the data either affirms the value of the existing policy or it doesn't.

You cite one type of instance. I have addressed this issue. If this behavior is as widespread as you claim I doubt the local media would allow this blatant risk to public safety to continue irrespective of the power and control you believe firefighters are able to exercise over the chief and policy makers. I have to believe you have taken your case to the media. Given the animous of the local media to public employees behaving badly I doubt they would also be as cowed in the manner you claim those are in both management and political realms.

My research into the fire culture has convinced me that it has its own agenda, and it will assert its practices as it sees fit, even at the expense of public safety as I have presented with the delayed response policy of the Glendale Fire Department. You are the only firefighter who has admitted that it is a flawed policy and that it comes down to leadership. I agree, and where hazing and harassment are present to the extent that it is in your department, it is symbolic of the fact that fire management cannot control destructive and costly firehouse behavior. I spoke with a person close to the dog food eating incident who is part of a group of consultants under contract with the LA City Fire Department. He informed me several weeks ago that there are another twenty cases like the dog food incident in the pipeline. The inability of the fire chief to get control of one aspect of the workforce strongly suggests there may be other areas, including operations, where best practices are being compromised. We wouldn't know unless a thorough audit is conducted. A survey was taken by the city manager of Redwood City in Northern California about a decade ago. In a questionnaire he created and sent to nineteen other city managers in California regarding their perception of their city's fire department, twelve city managers responded. Nine of the twelve, or 75%, said that the fire union ran the fire department in their city and not the fire chief. That leaves a lot of potential for things to get askew. The career firefighter study group said the percentage of fire departments being run by the union was even higher that 75%.

Again I'd like to see something more substantial than an unverifiable claim. We both know questionnaires can be structured to have a predetermined outcome. I could easily write one that said the same thing about any public agency. Specifically I could easily argue the law enforcement culture exhibits self serving behavior that would lead anyone to conclude they (law enforcement) believe they are not bound by the law. We could both do a quick Google search of police abuse and I bet the number of hits would be significant.

Here is one right here. http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6476

Innovations in the field of electronic and radio communications will further reduce response times and the public will definitely benefit. But when engine and truck crews move in and out of their jurisdictional boundaries in a cavalier manner and abandoned the principles of geographic integrity and best practices, they create opportunities for delays in responses that are preventable. I have many documents and photos of engine and truck companies and rescue ambulances out of district for reasons that are not justified, such as social visits to another fire station, to copy a few pages of documents, to attend retirement parties, civic events, and food shopping, to name a few. While they are out of their district, according to the Glendale Fire Department – I have the quotes from fire management – it takes at least another two minutes in delayed response for an out of district company to get to the scene of a medical emergency. I also have the dispatch logs. This is the kind of documented activity that robs the public of the fastest responses to emergency calls. These policies have life-threatening consequences and are presently being ignored by Glendale fire management and the fire union. There is now hope for accountability because the city manager said last week that the fire department will be responding to my concerns in the near future. I am very pleased to hear of this development.

Once again I have to believe if this were the threat to public safety you claim the local media would be printing it in 25 pt font on the front of the local fishwrap. So once again I have to ask why you haven't enlisted the local media given the so called stonewalls you claim exist at the city level?

Firefighters should not be paid piecework; are you implying that I advocate that? Fire station placement has historically been based upon the normal growth process of neighborhoods and increases in populations and density. If you are saying that future placement of fire stations are going to be determined by medical emergency response capability in cooperation with the American Heart Association, I would agree with that policy. In Glendale, 87% of emergency responses are for medical calls. Those statistics should drive future planning of fire departments. In Glendale, during the time that medical calls doubled, fire calls went down by over a thousand calls. This trend will continue in the foreseeable future.

Maybe, maybe not. As the construction (even new) ages the incidence of fire calls will actually increase over time. Since a majority of fire incidents are driven by human carelessness the probability could very well increase as the population of the city increases.

My point is that there are quite a few mechanisms in place that hold police conduct in check and accountable to the public. Much scrutiny is applied by numerous entities both within and out side of the criminal justice system. I have mentioned the entities before. Unlike that system of checks and balances, the fire department operates with little or no scrutiny by outside sources and that can lead to bad policy as I have documented.

Fire departments have the oversight required by the local government. With rare exception firefighters are not given the ability to deny a citizen their liberty or in extreme cases the ability to use deadly force. I disagree that fire departments operate with little scrutiny. They are responsible to the fire chief, the city council, and public at large. Despite your cries of incompetence, firefighters continually have an approval rating in the 90+% range. The reason for that is twofold. The greater of majority of firefighters treat the citizen with respect. Something I have heard numerous citizens claim they don't get from law enforcement professionals. Secondly, as government agencies go, citizens know if they call 911 and have an emergency that requires an emergency response from the fire department they know someone will be there soon and not hours or even days later like law enforcement or other city departments.

******************************************************************************************************************************************

Comment #25: Response by Bruce Philpott to Comment # 22 by LA Firefighter

“You made the offer to set up a meeting with someone who can verify that fire union officials are conducting political business with an individual who can verify the authenticity of your anecdote. I would love to take (sic) up on your offer as long as I can record his (or her) statement. I am impressed that someone is willing to commit to the record they committed a federal crime. More impressive is that you as a member of the law enforcement community was well aware of a crime being committee and did nothing to either prevent it or report it to the proper authorities.”

I am not sure what you mean by someone who committed a federal crime. What statue are you referring to? If I may refresh your memory, the campaign manager for the city councilman observed the city councilman pick up the phone and call the fire union president and asked him for a specific dollar amount for a campaign contribution ($2500 in this particular case). The city does not have a campaign finance law that sets a limit on what people or, in this case, a fire union, can donate. Does that constitute a federal crime? I have not done the research as you have. Would you please furnish me with that information and, if true, I will initiate a complaint to the proper authorities. In the meantime, I accept your invitation to meet on this subject and, yes, you may record the entire event. Video it if you prefer. I would like to go over these egregious issues of firefighters working on political campaigns while on-duty. I will have the former campaign manager at this meeting to relate his story. But, I have an idea to expand upon this meeting. Why don’t we jointly sponsor a public forum here in Glendale and discuss response times and staffing policies as well as political actions associated with fire unions. The forum would be financed by local Glendale citizens who care about the services they receive from the city. You can bring several members of the Glendale Fire Department as well. If we agreed to host a series of community forums we could cover a lot of important subjects. The public would gain further insight into the fire department’s operations. If you agree to this conference or series of conferences, I will give you my phone number and we can start to plan the event(s) as soon as possible.

******************************************************************************************************************************************

Comment #24: Response by Bruce Philpott to Comment # 21 by LA Firefighter

In response to your first question about the overtime issue, you state, “Overtime pay is driven by the number of open slots required for firefighter safety that will produce the level of service the public deserves”.

In response to your lengthy paragraph defending the San Diego Firefighters.

Your next observation ties costs to fund police services with that of the fire service and you ask why I am only addressing the fire portion of the issue.

I have never stated that the full cost burden of police officers to taxpayers is any different than the cost of firefighters. They both get about the same compensation and benefit packages and most are tied to the PERS Public Safety Pension system that allows them to received 90% of the highest paid year as the start of their retirement, with annual cost of living adjustments. By running the numbers, the public can get a glimpse of the huge financial burden that awaits local governments in the future. Take the following example: a Glendale fire captain or police sergeant retires at age 51 after 30 years of service. His salary for purposes of determining his highest twelve months, without overtime, will be set based upon a number of bonuses and incentive pays that are tied to his base salary. But, today it will be somewhere in the range of $125,000 to $132,000. At 90%, beginning retirement pay will be about $117,000 per year. Using today’s dollars, the retired fire captain or police sergeant will receive a pension amount of over $3.5 million dollars before he is expected to die. And, his spouse will continue receiving these benefits until that person dies. Women live longer than men by several years and most firefighters and cops are male, in fact, all of them are males in the Glendale Fire Department with the exception of one paramedic. Since you have many more females in your department, are they a liability or an asset?

To paraphrase your next comments regarding the influence of the fire unions over local politicians. You claim, “Anecdotal with no substantiation. I have to question the validity of this claim”.

The military pilot who flies the most advanced planes in the world has the responsibility of protecting the entire free world. He controls a highly sophisticated and complex airplane that is valued up to several billion dollars as in the B-2 bomber. Fighter pilots also have an array of support personnel that comprise another multi-billion dollar cost, aircraft carriers, refueling planes in flight, sophisticated electronics that can see over the horizon and releasing ordinance that can strike a two foot radius. I could go on but I’ll stop here. Firefighters are assigned to a neighborhood fire station that may service 20,000 people (not the free world with more than a billion people), with – and I don’t mean to offend – simple tools to extinguish fires, provide for things like trench rescues, and MOST IMPORTANT, to be absolutely ready to respond to medical emergencies to backup the rescue ambulance. Remember, in Glendale, as in many local cities, 87% of all emergency responses are for people who are in a medical crisis. Of the 13% that are categorized as fire calls, 93% of alarms are false and, according to the I.A.F.F., 90% of the fire incidents that are real, can be adequately handled by the first arriving engine company. Does that sound like something that can be comparable to an advanced military pilot holding the rank of colonel? Neither position is a waste of taxpayer resources, but, since you have been in the fire service and not in the private sector, I find that it is more difficult for government employees to understand the dynamics of supply and demand in the workplace. I have run the scenario of firefighters training and daily responsibilities to private sector human resource experts and they are shocked. They see a clear disconnect between the compensation and benefits of a firefighter in Glendale and the training and value they bring to the citizens.

“In closing. Bruce, you make a lot of claims that are either unsubstantiated or prejudicial. Until you get past both of those traits in your presentation, your credibility will be forever challenged and discredited.”

There is one single focus of my claims. That is to remove a policy in the Glendale Fire Department that I have documented as being responsible for many delayed emergency responses that can have life-threatening consequences. It is interesting that you have not challenged my credibility regarding the dispatch logs that prove the existence of these unjustified delays. That is the thrust of my campaign at this point. So your remarks that I have presented “unsubstantiated claims” do not appear to refer to my topic of focus. I understand your role is to discredit me regarding my advocacy for establishing better practices in the fire service. You will have ample new issues in the near future to challenge me.

Maybe we don’t agree on a lot of this subject matter, but at least it is offering the public some greater understanding that may help them to form their opinions, and for that I commend you.

******************************************************************************************************************************************

Comment #23: Response by Bruce Philpott to Comment # 20 by LA Firefighter

I like your format so I hope you don’t mind if I use it as well.

In reference to your demand for me to name a few of the fire chiefs that made up the career firefighter study group, you stated, “Bruce, I went to a very well renowned college for both my undergraduate and graduate degrees. Right here in LA. Bottom Line. If you can’t post your sources for verification the point is deemed either invalid or not believable”.

Why are you concerned with me “posting my sources of verification”, referring to the group of fire chiefs that I met with over a five year period? I have repeatedly given the reasons, citing the specific language of fear of termination by the Los Angeles Area Fire Chiefs. Again, you take the tactic of trying to attack the messenger. If I give you one or more names, you will simply call the fire union in those cities where the fire chief served and get all of the mud you can and then throw it against the proverbial wall, in a further attempt to discredit the messenger. What would that accomplish other than to suit your interest of deflecting the focus from better practices in providing critical public safety services. If you throw enough mud you will achieve your goal of redirecting the readers’ attention. I won’t be a party to that deflection effort; I want to remain focused on life safety issues for citizens.

I have posted my sources for verification on the issue of the subject matter under discussion: data that clearly shows delayed response times due to firefighters jogging in remote areas of their fire district. You have already acknowledged that this is unacceptable if it actually adds time to emergency responses. Well, it clearly does. I have supplied the factual evidence in the form of dispatch logs. I just reviewed a fifth randomly selected dispatch log of an emergency response with firefighters responding from Brand Park while jogging. This fifth incident posts another “Failed Incident” as defined by the Glendale Fire Department’s consultant. 100% of these randomly selected responses are classified as failed incidents, or in other words, inexcusable and unnecessary delays to life-threatening medical crisis. Why aren’t you more interested in examining these documents, or challenging me on their legitimacy and accuracy than to demand the names of fire chiefs who assisted me in developing this data? It is not pertinent to the issue. Either I have the data or I don’t. And the data either affirms the value of the existing policy or it doesn’t.

“Both of those chiefs were forced to resign for political reasons that had nothing to do with the tactical operations of the department. Unless sexist behavior and practical jokes are now an impediment to fire suppression on the fire ground. I doubt you would make that leap. Tell the whole story. Not just the parts you think will make your case.”

My research into the fire culture has convinced me that it has its own agenda, and it will assert its practices as it sees fit, even at the expense of public safety as I have presented with the delayed response policy of the Glendale Fire Department. You are the only firefighter who has admitted that it is a flawed policy and that it comes down to leadership. I agree, and where hazing and harassment are present to the extent that it is in your department, it is symbolic of the fact that fire management cannot control destructive and costly firehouse behavior. I spoke with a person close to the dog food eating incident who is part of a group of consultants under contract with the LA City Fire Department. He informed me several weeks ago that there are another twenty cases like the dog food incident in the pipeline. The inability of the fire chief to get control of one aspect of the workforce strongly suggests there may be other areas, including operations, where best practices are being compromised. We wouldn’t know unless a thorough audit is conducted. A survey was taken by the city manager of Redwood City in Northern California about a decade ago. In a questionnaire he created and sent to nineteen other city managers in California regarding their perception of their city’s fire department, twelve city managers responded. Nine of the twelve, or 75%, said that the fire union ran the fire department in their city and not the fire chief. That leaves a lot of potential for things to get askew. The career firefighter study group said the percentage of fire departments being run by the union was even higher that 75%.

“With the advent of GPS technology being inserted into fire apparatus, response times should dramatically be reduced since the nearest unit will be dispatched as opposed to the nearest station.”

“So should firefighters now be paid piece work depending upon how much time is actually spent on an emergency? Station placement is based upon response criteria laid out by the American Heart Association to render medical aid ASAP. The fire and EMS services are passive by nature. Emergency incidents cannot be manufactured like widgets. I doubt you would want it any other way. You imply that because a unit isn’t running 24/7 it is a waste of taxpayer resources.”

You asked me, “So what’s your point?” when you quoted me as saying earlier, “But, unlike the fire department, the police department is the front end of the Criminal Justice System.”.

******************************************************************************************************************************************

Comment #22: From LA Firefighter to Bruce Philpott

Bruce. You make the offer to set up a meeting with someone who can verify that fire union officials are conducting political business with an individual who can verify the authenticity of your anecdote. I would love to take up on your offer as long as I can record his (or her) statement. I am impressed that someone is willing to commit to the record they committed a federal crime. More impressive is that you as a member of the law enforcement community was well aware of a crime being committed and did nothing to either prevent it or report it to the proper authorities.

******************************************************************************************************************************************

Comment #21: Response by LA Firefighter to Bruce Philpott’s Comments contained in Comment # 19:

I want to respond to your first question, "What is the point of detailing the compensation of firefighters"? The level of compensation defines the worth or value that employees bring to the marketplace. Since the public does not know how much firefighters are compensated, I thought it might be helpful to inform them, since they are the ones who are paying those salaries. And, as you know, it isn't just salaries. There is a 60% benefit package that accompanies the pay. I have found that the public is shocked when I inform them of the level of compensation they are receiving. Of the 50 highest paid city employees in Glendale last year, 36 of them were firefighters, with salaries ranging from $160,000 to $215,000. There were only 3 police officers in the top 50, which included the police chief and deputy police chief. Almost all of the firefighters in the top 50 hold rank and file positions. It is always fun to be able to shock people with facts and figures, regardless of where they come from.

What is the benefits package for other safety employees? Again, I stated the easiest way to reduce the amount of overtime paid to firefighters is to hire more firefighters. Overtime pay is driven by the number of open slots required for firefighter safety that will produce the level of service the public deserves. Yet the accountants at City Hall don't do that because they realize it is cheaper to pay overtime. While you claim my questions are a deflection, you imply that somehow some municipal services are more important than others.

In the City of San Diego, it is those figures that have gotten several firefighters and other members of the pension board in hot water and criminal scrutiny is under way for their actions. Actions, I might say, that have significantly contributed to the 2.8 billion dollar pension deficit for the taxpayers of San Diego. It still has the potential to bankrupt the city. And many others cities are heading in that direction.

Once again you leave out pertinent facts. The SDPD receives the same pension package as the SDFD. Given there are far more police officers in the PD one could say the possibility of insolvency is driven more by law enforcement than the FD. The other and more important fact is the city stopped making payments to the pension plans during the go go years of the 90s. Now that stock market returns for pension plans is in the low two digits as opposed to the era when the ROI was double, there are the bills to pay that were considered normal prior to the 90's. If you want to remain even remotely credible it would behoove you to show all the facts and not just those that suit your argument as an attempt to make the case the firefighter compensation is the driving force behind municipal fiscal challenges. By the way. Criminal charges have been dropped against the members of the pension board. Or they were acquitted. You should try to remain up to date.

It is my effort to try and get out in front of that curve here in Glendale. Many cities are now struggling with, and frightened to death at, the actuarial projections of the future costs to fund these huge deficits. Most cities have not identified where this revenue stream is going to come from other than to reduce other city services such as libraries, parks and road maintenance.

Again. Given the number of PD employees, I would wager that is the driving force for fiscal challenges as a result of pension obligations.

To your next question, "Are there no other political groups with muscle"? I have two anecdotal stories. Several years ago, a woman decided to run for the city council in Pasadena. She came up to me one day and asked if I could arrange for her to meet with the Pasadena fire union. She said that she had heard that you couldn't get elected in Pasadena unless you have the endorsement of the fire union. She did not mention the police union. She is very astute politically; her husband is a former member of the Reagan presidential cabinet. I recently spoke with the campaign manager who handled the re-election bid for an incumbent city council member. The campaign was over and the successfully elected incumbent was told that he still had about $2500 of outstanding debt. The city councilman picked up the phone in his city hall office and direct dialed the president of the fire union. The councilman then asked the union president to deposit $2500 into his campaign account by that afternoon. It was done without any further communications. This is how it works. The campaign manager knew the money came through because his check for one thousand dollars cleared the next day. If you want to pursue this further I can arrange a meeting.

Anecdotal with no substantiation. I have to question the validity of this claim. If this were a court case or legal claim it would be laughed out of court as hearsay. You and I both know the actions you mention are illegal under federal statutes. In fact one might say that unless you have proof of the mentioned action your statements border on slander. If they are true all the officials mentioned should be investigated and charged for the crimes committed that you claim. If they are not true I believe you should be charged with slander.

Have you ever heard of the dynamics of supply and demand and how compensation is tied to that?

I deleted your comments on the usual argument that firefighters are over paid because of the number of applicants. I don't really care about the hardships to HR departments. That is their function within a municipality. I have to ask that you detail a quantifiable number of applicants per job opening that would lead you to conclude that compensation is in equilibrium. Certainly with all the empirical work you have done that figure is available. I will draw a similar analogy. I have a friend in college who is a fighter pilot in the USAF. Served his country for 20 years flying the most advanced aircraft in the world. He has never fired a shot or dropped a bomb in anger despite requesting deployment to warzones. The USAF pays him O-6 wages (full Colonel) despite the fact there are literally hundreds of individuals who would be willing to do the job for the price of an airman (the lowest enlisted rank). The U.S. has spent literally millions of dollars training, equipping, and paying my buddy who has never been in combat. Would you also consider that a waste of taxpayer resources? I don't know what the answer is to recruitment and retention of law enforcement professionals. Public safety is not a typical supply and demand commodity like bushels of wheat. Which is the analogy your statements try to make.

And, in closing, I have never advocated for the reduction in compensation for firefighters. If you have facts to the contrary, please present them. In fact, as you will note as I get further into my presentations to the Glendale City Council, I make no further mention of their salaries or benefit packages and I have never called for any reductions.

I got a bit ahead of myself. I read your missive To Protect and Save. In that model you advocate significant lower wages for firefighters. I'll give you that you don't advocate current reductions. My guess is you view that as the next step.

In closing. Bruce, you make a lot of claims that are either unsubstantiated or prejudicial. Until you get past both of those traits in your presentation, your credibility will be forever challenged and discredited.

******************************************************************************************************************************************

Comment #20: Response by LA Firefighter to Bruce Philpott’s Comments contained in Comment # 18:

Bruce. I went to a very well renowned college for both my undergraduate and graduate degrees. Right here in LA. Bottom line. If you can't post your sources for verification the point is deemed either invalid or not believable. As a seasoned police officer you should know that charging someone with a crime without proof will get you laughed out of court if you get to trial in the first place. Sorry. That's just the way it is.

The article comes on the heels of the city's last two fire chiefs, Manning and Bamatere, who were forced to resign.

Both of those chiefs were forced to resign for political reasons that had nothing to do with the tactical operations of the department. Unless sexist behavior and practical jokes are now an impediment to fire suppression on the fire ground. I doubt you would make that leap. Tell the whole story. Not just the parts you think will make your case.

Do you see why there is a need to respect their desire to remain anonymous? When the time is right, several of them will be made known and they will answer questions from the public and policy makers. I will not ask them to appear in front of a bunch of angry firefighters who will react with a collective voice of no confidence as they have done many times in the past to protect their interests, even though they conflict with the safety of citizens.

No I do not. If they truly have the courage of their convictions they should be willing to face the opposition. If they believe change is required to the level you state, their facts would speak for themselves.

This is directly related, in part, to the policy that allows firefighters to jog in remote locations. Does that best serve the public?

Again, an easy fix with proper leadership.

They need to take stock of these kinds of policies and practices and make the necessary corrections. That starts with being intellectually honest and open, as you have been, for evaluation and the pursuit of the Best Practices. As you know, "geographic integrity", is a best practice that seems to have eluded some fire departments, not just Glendale. That has always been defined as the engine and truck companies being in their centrally located district fire stations ready to respond in any direction with similar results in arrival time. Anything less can and will degrade first responders to get to the scene of an emergency as fast as possible as I have documented.

With the advent of GPS technology being inserted into fire apparatus, response times should dramatically be reduced since the nearest unit will be dispatched as opposed to the nearest station.

In Glendale, firefighters are the highest paid workforce in its city government. And, they are only active on emergency calls for an average of one hour and fifteen minutes each 24-hour shift, or about 4 % of their shift. They aren't paid the big bucks to be productive during their entire shift, they are paid very well to be at maximum readiness to respond to medical and fire emergencies as fast as is humanly possible.

So should firefighters now be paid piece work depending upon how much time is actually spent on an emergency? Station placement is based upon response criteria laid out by the American Heart Association to render medical aid ASAP. The fire and EMS services are passive by nature. Emergency incidents cannot be manufactured like widgets. I doubt you would want it any other way. You imply that because a unit isn't running 24/7 it is a waste of taxpayer resources.

But, unlike the fire department, the police department is the front end of the Criminal Justice System.

So what's your point? The fire department is the front end of providing emergency services for any number of types of incidents other departments (ie law enforcement, code enforcement, tree trimmers etc) are unequipped to handle. I won't go into the litany of service fire departments are trained to respond to other than fires. I'm sure you know. Specifically, the EMS system is now recognized and acknowledged as the front end of the American health care system. It is the fire department that has the infrastructure in place and is able to respond irrespective of a patient's ability to pay.

******************************************************************************************************************************************

Comment #19: Response by Bruce Philpott to LA Firefighter’s Comments contained in Comment # 17:

I want to respond to your first question, “What is the point of detailing the compensation of firefighters”? The level of compensation defines the worth or value that employees bring to the marketplace. Since the public does not know how much firefighters are compensated, I thought it might be helpful to inform them, since they are the ones who are paying those salaries. And, as you know, it isn’t just salaries. There is a 60% benefit package that accompanies the pay. I have found that the public is shocked when I inform them of the level of compensation they are receiving. Of the 50 highest paid city employees in Glendale last year, 36 of them were firefighters, with salaries ranging from $160,000 to $215,000. There were only 3 police officers in the top 50, which included the police chief and deputy police chief. Almost all of the firefighters in the top 50 hold rank and file positions. It is always fun to be able to shock people with facts and figures, regardless of where they come from. In the City of San Diego, it is those figures that have gotten several firefighters and other members of the pension board in hot water and criminal scrutiny is under way for their actions. Actions, I might say, that have significantly contributed to the 2.8 billion dollar pension deficit for the taxpayers of San Diego. It still has the potential to bankrupt the city. And many others cities are heading in that direction.

To your next question, “Are there no other political groups with muscle”? I have two anecdotal stories. Several years ago, a woman decided to run for the city council in Pasadena. She came up to me one day and asked if I could arrange for her to meet with the Pasadena fire union. She said that she had heard that you couldn’t get elected in Pasadena unless you have the endorsement of the fire union. She did not mention the police union. She is very astute politically; her husband is a former member of the Reagan presidential cabinet. I recently spoke with the campaign manager who handled the re-election bid for an incumbent city council member. The campaign was over and the successfully elected incumbent was told that he still had about $2500 of outstanding debt. The city councilman picked up the phone in his city hall office and direct dialed the president of the fire union. The councilman then asked the union president to deposit $2500 into his campaign account by that afternoon. It was done without any further communications. This is how it works. The campaign manager knew the money came through because his check for one thousand dollars cleared the next day. If you want to pursue this further I can arrange a meeting.

There is also the issue of supply and demand. I do not know of a police department that doesn’t have an open application policy for new recruits. Police departments cannot keep up with the cycle of recruitment, retention and retirements. However, the last time the Burbank and Glendale Fire Departments posted a total of three openings, they received nearly 3000 applications, most of whom had already graduated from a state-certified fire academy and many already held paramedic certificates. I spoke with a city manager that told me that he always knew when the human resources department was taking applications for his fire department. He said the line would come out of the building and go all the way around the block. Today, fire departments no longer make open announcements for hiring. They have other ways so that the public is not aware of the massive number of people trying to get hired.

Fire departments, because they have so many applications, have trouble processing the shear volume. Human Resource Departments have had to go to a lottery method to cull the unmanageable numbers of applicants to a reasonable size.

Have you ever heard of the dynamics of supply and demand and how compensation is tied to that?

If I have not responded to each of your questions in the above material, please let me know.

******************************************************************************************************************************************

Comment #18: Response by Bruce Philpott to LA Firefighter’s Comments contained in Comment # 15:

Your comments regarding police department and law enforcement operations are non-responsive to the issue under discussion. You did, however, seem to honestly and forthrightly answer the question to the principle issue of fire crews’ ability to respond to emergency medical and fire calls. You said that your department does not permit such behavior as running in remote parks that cause delays in response times, and that it is, in your words, “an easy fix with proper leadership”. You have just made my case. Thank you. Several other firefighters have also offered similar responses but did not want to have them posted.

Regarding your desire to have me list the fire chiefs that I worked with as the career firefighter study group, I have already addressed that question in my prior remarks and the reason why I am not listing their names, although I did list some of the cities they work/worked for. The statement that I quoted from the Los Angeles Area Fire Chiefs puts it succinctly: it is the fire chiefs who will be out of a job if they try and buck the system that prevails in the fire culture today. That is why David Fleming, former President of the Los Angeles Fire Commission, was quoted recently in a Los Angeles Times Newspaper article, “The public does not know what goes on in that department” (LA Times, 12-5-06). The full quote states, “The (fire) chief can simply cajole, plead and hope that a bunch of the guys will go along with him. His hands are tied. The public doesn’t know what goes on in that department.” The article comes on the heels of the city’s last two fire chiefs, Manning and Bamatere, who were forced to resign. Do you see why there is a need to respect their desire to remain anonymous? When the time is right, several of them will be made known and they will answer questions from the public and policy makers. I will not ask them to appear in front of a bunch of angry firefighters who will react with a collective voice of no confidence as they have done many times in the past to protect their interests, even though they conflict with the safety of citizens. Just read some of the above comments. They have not shown any interest, desire, or a sense of professionally driven ethics to analyze, discuss or debate the issue of delayed emergency responses as a result of activity that can be duplicated at the central district fire station: that being getting a good physical workout.

But, I do thank you for being open about acknowledging that flawed policies that cause delays in emergency response time should be rescinded if they do not serve a valuable purpose to the public.

This is the issue under discussion. It is pertinent to risk factors associated with medical crisis that occur everyday in Glendale. I have been trying to stay focused on this issue but, other than your comments, the rest deflect the topic. Is it possible they are embarrassed and afraid to address the issue because they have no counter data to support an argument to defend Glendale’s current policy? According to the Glendale Fire Department’s own consultant, Civic Technologies, Inc., Glendale has too many “failed responses” (his term, not mine) in emergency medical responses. This is directly related, in part, to the policy that allows firefighters to jog in remote locations. Does that best serve the public?

They need to take stock of these kinds of policies and practices and make the necessary corrections. That starts with being intellectually honest and open, as you have been, for evaluation and the pursuit of the Best Practices. As you know, “geographic integrity”, is a best practice that seems to have eluded some fire departments, not just Glendale. That has always been defined as the engine and truck companies being in their centrally located district fire stations ready to respond in any direction with similar results in arrival time. Anything less can and will degrade first responders to get to the scene of an emergency as fast as possible as I have documented.

In Glendale, firefighters are the highest paid workforce in its city government. And, they are only active on emergency calls for an average of one hour and fifteen minutes each 24-hour shift, or about 4 % of their shift. They aren’t paid the big bucks to be productive during their entire shift, they are paid very well to be at maximum readiness to respond to medical and fire emergencies as fast as is humanly possible.

You also asked, “Why is law enforcement such a sacred cow”? In my opinion, no department of local government should pass under the radar of public scrutiny. But, unlike the fire department, the police department is the front end of the Criminal Justice System. As such, there are a myriad of entities that scrutinize their work and conduct, starting with prosecutors. Then add judges and defense attorneys. Include groups such as Citizens Against Police Abuse, neighborhood watch and homeowner groups concerned with criminal or traffic activity and you have a wide variety of entities that hold police departments accountable. As you know the fire department has nothing similar. Some large departments like yours have fire commissions, but I will refer you back to the quote by the former President of your Fire Commission, Mr. David Fleming.

Had I detected a similar flawed policy in the police department that interfered with the ability of emergency responders to get to the scene of a major emergency, I would feel duty bound and morally obligated to address it. If you have knowledge of police operations or practices that could be improved, I encourage you to research them and present them to policy makers. When I was police chief in Pasadena, and throughout my entire career, I encouraged that kind of interaction with the public, openly and with a keen interest to see how we might improve our services and effectiveness to our citizens.

Your last paragraph states, “You are impugning the reputation of a well respected department based upon two incidents with little or no proof other than your unsubstantiated claims. Hardly a foundation for the restructuring of a department for a model that is yet unproven at any level of civic organization.” First, you state that I have two incidents with little or no proof. As I have stated in previous Comments, I randomly pulled the dispatch logs for four runs by the engine company whose firefighters were running in the remote park and discovered that it took six minutes on two of them, one took seven minutes, and one took eight minutes. I have the incident numbers and dispatch logs and presented them to the Glendale City Council several weeks ago. I also have dispatch logs that show a four-minute response time when they are responding from the fire station. I would imagine that the Glendale Fire Department has checked my data with a microscope and if they could they would have challenged me on my research. Why are you questioning it now when they are unable to? They are the keepers of the dispatch logs and response data. I will be happy to meet with you and show you the records. Secondly, let me refer you to your previous statement about how to remedy the delayed emergency responses. You said, “If they (delayed responses that I have documented) are true, an easy remedy is to edict that crews stay in their assigned districts. That is the way it is done in my department.” You went on to say that it would be, “An easy fix with proper leadership”. Since the Glendale Fire Department continues to this day operating with this policy that allows fire crews to drive out of district and to remote parks with documented delays of between 50% to 100% longer response times than their average runs, it seems that you are joining me in criticizing this policy of “Failed Responses”. I am not impugning their reputation; they are impugning their own reputation. I am merely the messenger.

******************************************************************************************************************************************

Comment #17: From LA Firefighter

Bruce:

What is the point of detailing the compensation of firefighters? You imply that all of those who EARNED those figures did nothing other than sit around and throw pencils into the ceiling. Again I have to ask. Since you are so familiar with the base pay and OT earnings of firefighters, what are the similar figures for other employees in the city? The answer to lowering OT costs for a city has always been easy. Hire more firefighters. More firefighters means the number of open spots are fewer thereby reducing the opportunities for OT spots to be filled.

You sound as if though you don't approve of the political involvement of firefighters. Are there no other employee groups with political muscle? In our city the POA is by far the dominant force in terms of employees and its political coffers. Yet you don't seem to mind. Seems to me you're a bit hypocritical and selective in both your observations. You go on to mention the pay of fire department positions within the city. What are the base pay and total compensation for similar ranks within the PD? I would like to know. And I'm sure in the interest of due diligence to the citizens you have the information readily available and can publish it here and on the vanguardians website. I look forward to reading that information.

******************************************************************************************************************************************

Comment #16: In response to T.J.’s Comment # 13:

Are you a firefighter? If not, I find it extraordinary that you posses so much knowledge on the history of the Pasadena Fire Department. You do your research. To pull out a name like Fire Chief Pekerol and discredit this man has the markings of the union all over it. And, as only firefighters know, Chief Pekerol did receive a no confidence vote from the Pasadena fire union. The union president at the time said publicly that he would see that Pekerol leaves. Pekerol was trying to reign in the out of control overtime crisis. The cost figures he was looking at were similar to the rising costs today in the Glendale Fire Department. In 1999, Glendale’s overtime was $1.6 million dollars. This last year it grew to a whopping $5.8 million dollars, a 300% growth. It is the fire unions that are taking these grotesque amounts of overtime, millions of dollars that could be used for parks, senior centers and libraries. And, as is many cases, fire chiefs, who try to hold the restive unionized workforce to be more productive and accountable, they assert their political muscle. A vote of no confidence in my opinion is a badge of honor for a fire chief who has the courage to try and make a difference and be more responsible and accountable to the taxpayers. Last year, firefighters in Glendale averaged $30,000 in overtime, with a total average compensation of $135,000. 172 of the 180 firefighters that work the 24-hour shift received over $100,000 last year.

You also state that, “these men refuse to provide facts”. Being one of those two men to whom you are referring, I can state as a fact, sir, that I have all the data to support my position that the current policy is severely delaying emergency response times and I will be happy to meet with you and share them. They’re the kind of documents that sink any attempts by you and the others to win this debate. It is apparent because we have gotten to Comments that number 15 and none of you has made any attempt to mount an argument that says my data is bogus. And to provide counter data that renders mine impotent. Just your little inserts like “these men refuse to provide facts”. But, I know you won’t agree because you can’t afford to. It would leave you without any further means to debate the issue. It is you who do not have the facts. At least you and the rest have not provided any evidence to support the current policy that allows firefighters to jog in remote parks and out of district (as you can clearly read in Chapter 4 or Glendale Fire Department’s Police and Procedure Manual). I have dispatch logs that show delays of fifty to one hundred percent (50% to 100%) when they are jogging in these distance parks a quarter of a mile from the engine. Since you obviously support this policy, why don’t you offer supporting data?

Regarding the rest of your # 13 posting, I have just read Mr. Allen’s response and I will leave it at that. As you will note, these events happened in his presence and his presence only. I wasn’t at either of them as you claim.

******************************************************************************************************************************************

Comment #15: From LA Firefighter

Bruce:

You bring up incidents that are at best anecdotal with no support. Fair enough. I'll take you at your word they are true. If they are true, an easy remedy is to edict that crews stay in their assigned districts. That is the way it is done in my department. An easy fix with proper leadership.

You claim to have the input from individuals with hundreds of years of experience yet you are unwilling to post their names I have to doubt the veracity of either your using them as input for your for your model. If they were truly willing to support this as a viable alternative I see no reason why they are not willing to put their names for public consumption and evaluation.

I would like to know why the fire department has been singled out? The largest cost center for any municipality is the police department. Have you performed a similar study on any local PD's detailing the actual amount of time spent suppressing crime? I believe a case could be made that the majority of police work is nothing more than report writing after an incident has occurred. I could just as easily say we could replace patrol officers and outsource the whole enforcement division to the same company that protects the Glendale Galleria. We could certainly do away with SWAT teams given the amount of resources consumed versus the actual times those groups are actually needed. Police officers arrive after an incident has occurred and take a report. I think you would agree the actual times police officers suppress a crime are a rare occasion. We could hire a bunch of English major college kids out of PCC or Glendale Community College and pay them double minimum wage with little or no benefits to write reports. As far as investigative services, we just enhance the CSI department to investigate crime scenes and pass on the information to the DA's office for possible prosecution.

After all. Why is law enforcement such a sacred cow? If we are going to explore the controlling of one cost center, why not the others within the city? Especially the one that consumes the lion's share of a city's resources?

You are impugning the reputation of a well respected department based upon two incidents with little or no proof other than your unsubstantiated claims. Hardly a foundation for the restructuring of a department for a model that is yet unproven at any level of civic organization.

******************************************************************************************************************************************

Comment #14: Re: interesting questions for you

1) The Pasadena visit was to Congressman Schiff’s office for the annual Christmas Party. Two Glendale Fire companies were there. They first denied they were there and then admitted it when they realized I saw it as I was there.

2) In March 2005 at the thrift store on Glenoaks and Western. There was a man down. The store people had called for GFD and 5 minutes later I got there and called again. Getting an engine. I asked why it took so long ... they told me they had been campaigning.

3) I watched as a woman was down on the ground. When the engine got there and did nothing until the RA arrived. The engine company stood around and offered no help.

Barry Allen

******************************************************************************************************************************************

Comment #13: interesting questions for you

Mr. Weber, I read in Mr Allens newsletter back in Feb the below statement from Mr Allen claiming the Fire department lied.

I emailed him several times for proof, He never gave any , he did say as below points out to contact Mr Philpott.

To this day no proof has been shown"

"Well if you want to know, they have lied regarding a visit to Pasadena, They were out passing out campaign literature while an injured person was down in a store and an engine showed up and couldn't transport. Another case was when an engine came in support of an RA and the 4 guys let the Paramedics do everything. Wouldn't’t even help with the gurney chair. They also are over paid and have no respect for accountability." this was posted on Mr Allens Vangaurd newsletter.

Mr Weber, I asked and NEVER received a honest response from Mr. Allen. Mr Allen did state.

"Tad – The person that heads up the fire committee would be very happy to discuss the issues with you. Please provide a phone number and the best time to call.

Let me know when you want to sit down with Mr Philpott."

So it appears that MR Philpott is with vanguard.

I have to question why both of these men refuse to provide facts, but are willing to provide lies to the public.

Years ago Mr Philpott shared a office with the Fire Chief of Pasadena, This man Mr Pekerol received the only no confidence vote by all the firemen in the departments history.

What is the real agenda of these men?????

T.J.

******************************************************************************************************************************************

Comment #12: Response to H.L.

Zero facts, H.L.? I have copies of your department’s emergency response records showing eight minutes responses to critical medical emergencies when the firefighters on the responding engine companies were jogging in remote areas or out of their fire districts altogether.

I am still trying to track your chain of thought that concludes that I am twisting the truth. You are living proof that tradition and culture in the fire service can trump best practices that would otherwise serve the best interests of the public. I find that the tradition and culture that binds the fire service today can put blinders on objective analysis of practices, and prevents them from making honest assessments of their operating procedures to see where they can improve service. Your responses so far have provided strong evidence of this. You have not addressed one issue involved in this discussion that addresses emergency response times that would benefit the well being of the public, but you have propelled insulting remarks against my character. I hope you understand that the critical thinking reader can see through this transparent charade.

Why is it so hard for you to understand that heart attacks and strokes are the two biggest killers of citizens living in Glendale today and that when they are in a life-threatening crisis, the time it takes for the first responders can very well make the difference between life and death? It is well known that a heart attack victim can die in five or six minutes and a stroke victim can develop grave consequences if not attended to within four or five minutes. The current policy that logs eight-minute response times would spell disaster for both of these kinds of medical emergencies and these kinds of incidents occur every day where 32 such medical emergencies are logged every 24 hours. (Are you going to repeat yourself here claiming that I am accusing firefighters of killing people?)

H.L., side note: part of the eight minute data I am citing came from Engine 27 dispatch logs and they were chosen at random. Of the four incidents, two, or 50% were 7 and 8 minutes responses. The other two logged six-minute responses. Among these four randomly selected emergency medical calls, there were 50% to 100% delays over the average response times. These delayed responses occurred when they were jogging at Brand Park. Why do you continue to ignore these facts?

Why are you allowing yourself to defend the status quo by placing these victims in greater jeopardy of dying or not recovering fully? This is the real story here. You continue to ignore the obvious issues that I have presented. The public is better protected when the engine and truck companies are in their centrally located district fire stations and as you are aware, this is known in the industry as the best practice. Each engine can respond in any direction, arriving within one to four minutes to an emergency call within its fire district. When engine and truck companies are out-of-district jogging or in remote parks (the current policy permits both scenarios), their response time changes drastically, adding unnecessary and critical minutes to emergency calls. This policy severely handicaps your emergency response capabilities by taking up to eight minutes to get to the other side of the fire district.

Make me the bad guy and continue to make silly charges that I am a liar and can’t be trusted. Believe it or not, but informed readers have the ability to separate out the noise of your rhetoric from the real signal of failed incidents in emergency responses and support a change in policy that would require engine and truck companies to work out in the physical fitness rooms that are present in each of the fire stations. The point is, H.L., they don’t have to drive out of their fire district or to remote parks to get a good work out. Each fire station is equipped with a fitness room with aerobic and resistance training equipment. Therefore, they don’t have to add four minutes to emergency calls to get a work out. But they do so daily knowing it is jeopardizing the outcome of these emergencies.

Your failure to see and acknowledge this speaks volumes. There is too much at stake for you to stonewall this issue and simply throw mud at the messenger. It is you, H.L. who is losing respect by your failure to see the advantages of the new model that will enhance the speed of emergency responses.

Which response window would you prefer for the citizen’s of Glendale who will be experiencing a heart attack or stroke in the near future?

Model # 1: The current policy creates a response window of between two and eight minutes.

Model # 2: New policy – eliminating jogging in remote areas, including out-of-district locations -- creates a response window of one and four minutes.

It was your consultant, Civic Technologies, who in 2004 used the term, “Failed Responses” in reference to too many delayed emergency calls. What has your department done in response to this important issue? It apparently has ignored it, placing the public at further risk as a result. I thought Glendale firefighters were more concerned with providing the fastest response time they are capable of delivering rather than to promote unnecessary excursions to remote areas as their personal preference for working out. This seems like a no-brainer to me. But then again, I am not a firefighter, and I don’t see the issue from your perspective. I am looking at the issue from the victim’s perspective. It is that side of the emergency response service system that all of us should be looking at. That’s the same public you are sworn to protect to the best of your ability. You have room to move closer to that pledge. Just voluntarily rescind the policy and the public would thank you for it.

You are a professional firefighter, sworn to uphold the best practices in delivering emergency services. It boggles my mind that you refuse to address the issue that this discussion is all about, that being: providing the public with the fastest time to get to an emergency incident, many of which can and are life-threatening. I can only conclude at this point that you are violating a public trust that says public safety officials have a high stand