From:
Bruce Philpott
Re:
Article: Fire officials rebut gripes,
I
find your article very interesting in that you gave most of the three columns of print to the fire
department’s response to my series of presentations before the city council.
Yet, until now, and only as a prelude to giving full coverage of the fire
department’s response, you have never reported on the content or importance of
those presentations that began last September. My advocacy for the new fire
service models would reduce emergency response times, save up to $15 million
annually and double our disaster response capability for the next major
earthquake.
And,
thanks to the strength of the data I have presented, the fire department has,
in fact, followed my recommendation to rescind a policy that has allowed
unnecessary delays in critical emergency response times. Under the just
rescinded policy, firefighters were allowed to drive out of their fire
districts or jog in remote parks, adding up to double their normal response
times. This change of policy will save lives.
And,
according to Deputy Fire Chief Howard’s presentation, they are now examining
another of my recommendations that would convert a sit down meeting with all of
the company captains to a conferencing call system. This will keep the
captains, who are the crew supervisors on all first responding emergency
vehicles, in their respective district fire stations with their team of
firefighters, ready to respond with maximum effectiveness to the next emergency
call.
The
writer of the article refers to my examination of certain policies within the
Glendale Fire Department as, “criticism heaped upon the department”. It is
important for your readers to understand the difference between arguing the
value of different policies that would benefit the public and heaping criticism
upon the fire department. We have a fine fire department but it is steeped in
organizational traditions and culture that, sometimes, do not serve the best
interests of the public.
Your
writer also gave misleading information about my position on reserves or
auxiliary firefighters when he stated, “Philpott’s
challenge prompted (Chief) Howard to affirm the importance of having a fully
staffed, professional fire department, as opposed to an agency made up of
volunteers or reserves”. You then devoted the next four paragraphs quoting
Chief Howard on why a reserve system would not work. The inference being that I
support a fire department made up of reserves. That is absolutely untrue, and
to your credit, you noted my position in a single sentence near the end of the
article. I strongly support a department made up of career firefighters who are
adequately compensated for their work. I am only advocating for the fourth firefighter
on the company crews to be reserves, similar to the system that the Glendale
Police Department has deployed for decades with state certified police reserve
officers riding in patrol cars with a regular officer and saving millions of
dollars in overtime each year.
The
city is experiencing a grave fiscal issue: mounting obligations of police and
fire pensions and how to pay for the burgeoning costs associated with huge
payrolls and benefits. These runaway expenditures are cutting into the value
taxpayers are getting for their local tax dollars. This will continue unabated
unless citizens get involved.