Palo Alto officials have scrapped a much anticipated study into staffing levels at the Fire Department after learning that the consultant in charge of the study is unlikely to give them the type of information they're looking for, Assistant City Manager Pamela Antil said Wednesday.
The city had hired the firm Emergency Services Consulting International (ESCI) in February to perform a "standards of coverage" study and to offer recommendations on staffing levels in the department. The study was scheduled to be completed in June and to help inform city officials in their negotiations with the Palo Alto Firefighters, Local 1319, whose contract expires on June 30.
But the city terminated the contract Friday, three days after a City Council committee heard a preliminary report on the study and learned that the consultant performing the study is affiliated with the International Association of Fire Chiefs -- a support network for fire chiefs and emergency -response leaders -- and has never recommended a staffing reduction.
Antil said that after hearing the overview last week, staff decided that the ESCI report wouldn't give the council the type of in-depth analysis of staffing levels and overtime that the city was hoping to see. She said staff is now proposing a new study that would go beyond the "standards of coverage" analysis and focus on staffing levels and overtime expenditures.
"What we concluded as the consultant's work unfolded was that the range and depth of the analysis won't give us the information we need," Antil said. "We're looking for a study that will tell us if fire services and staffing levels are effectively matched to the needs of the community.
"The overview they gave at the Finance Committee did not give us any preliminary analysis."
The committee learned at its April 20 meeting that Joe Parrott, the consultant working on the $55,000 study, serves as a deputy fire chief in Salem, Ore., and has never recommended a staffing reduction. Councilman Larry Klein said he was concerned about the consultant's "institutional bias," while Vice Mayor Sid Espinosa said he was "amazed" and "flabbergasted" by the city's decision to hire a consultant who has never recommended reducing staff.
But Tony Spitaleri, president of the firefighters' union, accused the city of killing the study because it seemed unlikely to give the council the conclusion it was seeking. Spitaleri said the city's decision to scrap the study only confirms the union's argument that the public needs to have a greater say on its public safety operations.
Spitaleri also disputed the city's assertion that the consultant's status as a professional firefighter makes him biased in any way.
"They're saying the study might be biased," Spitaleri said. "But who do they want to perform the study, a shipbuilder?"
The union is circulating a petition that would require Palo Alto voters to approve any decision to reduce Fire Department staff or close a fire station. The petition needs to garner 5,442 signatures by mid-June to qualify for the November ballot.
"They want someone to come in and say, 'You have too many firefighters,' so that they can take it into negotiations and hold it over our heads and tell us they have to reduce firefighters," Spitaleri told the Weekly. "This is a good example for why we think the public should weigh in on whether public safety is adequate."
The consultant was chosen by a committee of high-level fire officials and financial analysts from the Utilities Department and the Administrative Services Department, Fire Chief Nick Marinaro told the committee.
With the city facing a projected $8.3 million budget gap in fiscal year 2011, council members are preparing for tough negotiations with the firefighters' union. Last week, the council passed a resolution calling the proposal in the petition "bad governance" and asking voters not to sign it.
Spitaleri said the union's goal is to receive between 8,000 and 10,000 signatures before its June 15 deadline. The petition has already garnered more than 3,000 signatures, he said.
Marinaro said the scope of the study didn't meet the intent of a 2003 city audit, which recommended a fresh analysis of staffing levels at the department. The new scope will give more consideration to minimum-staffing and overtime issues, he said.
"We just felt it was more prudent to erase the slate and start over," Marinaro said.
Comments
Midtown
on Apr 28, 2010 at 2:08 pm
on Apr 28, 2010 at 2:08 pm
lets all hope mr. klein and assistant city manager ms. antil get the "type of information they are looking for" and receive the biased report they are seeking. it is unfortunate that their actions have cost palo alto taxpayers $55,000 so far and will probably cost an additional $50,000 to $100,000 for information that mr. klein and ms. antil are requesting. what a pity.
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 28, 2010 at 2:24 pm
on Apr 28, 2010 at 2:24 pm
Thank goodness we at last have a City Manager and Staff who are able to say: "No" when an obvious biased report is going to be produced. Kudos to the Finance Committee for standing firm and questioning the obvious results of this report.
Crescent Park
on Apr 28, 2010 at 3:00 pm
on Apr 28, 2010 at 3:00 pm
They stop the report when they knew it wasn't going to give them the "right" answers.
Also, there were not happy with the Paramedic report that just came out, because that didn't give them the "right" answers either.
Mr. Klein was heard saying, "I don't care what reports say, I want to cut staffing". It's personal now?
Too bad the papers will not print the findings for both reports and let the people make the deceied.
Duveneck/St. Francis
on Apr 28, 2010 at 3:07 pm
on Apr 28, 2010 at 3:07 pm
Regardless, it is truly necessary to commission all these studies and reports from outside bodies? Do OTHER cities have the $ to do this all the time like Palo Alto? Seems like a way to cut city expenses is to cut out these costly "studies," which sometimes turn out to bi biased anyway.
Downtown North
on Apr 28, 2010 at 3:36 pm
on Apr 28, 2010 at 3:36 pm
[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]
Barron Park
on Apr 28, 2010 at 4:08 pm
on Apr 28, 2010 at 4:08 pm
A consultant should merely acquire data. From this it should make an objective report. From the makeup of the consultant I cannot believe they would present such an unbiased report. Why can't our staff and auditor get data from Bay Area cities that have recently had to maintain or reduce fire support service with reduced revenue? Area of city, number of stations, number of firefighters on duty, calls for service either for fire or EMT need, number of major fires per year, number of minor fires per year, property wholly or partially lost, requests for mutual aid, etc. Our City Auditor gives much of these data for Palo Alto in the annual Service Efforts and Accomplishments (SE&A) report. Comparisons with other cities should be straight forward.
Old Palo Alto
on Apr 28, 2010 at 4:34 pm
on Apr 28, 2010 at 4:34 pm
I'm glad they stopped this money wasting "study". Who needs a biased study?
When a neutral group is located to continue this study, please do so.
another community
on Apr 28, 2010 at 7:53 pm
on Apr 28, 2010 at 7:53 pm
So the Palo Alto council members are upset because the expert hired to evaluate their fire department has experience as: GASP! a firefighter? Well just who did they think would offer expertise in this field? a cop? a politician? a short-order cook?
I live hundreds of miles from Palo Alto but politics and politicians are the same everywhere. In my opinion, Palo Alto's council is just playing the blame game because they were afraid they weren't going to like what the consultant had to say.
One word regarding fire protection: REGIONALIZE. There is no reason for every little burg like Palo Alto to have their own fire chief and an entire management and support staff.
FYI: The IAFF is "the union", not the IAFC (which the consultant is connected with)
another community
on Apr 28, 2010 at 8:34 pm
on Apr 28, 2010 at 8:34 pm
Okay, the council doesn't want the study to be biased. Hmm, it didn't go the way they wanted, so scrap it.....kiss the 55k bye-bye, and look until they find someone who will write a report that they will approve. Define biased report please?
another community
on Apr 28, 2010 at 9:28 pm
on Apr 28, 2010 at 9:28 pm
Council holds a closed-door "in service" with the Information Technology division because the decisions they have made in the past with regard to SAP and hardware purchases won't stand up to the light of day. Then Council throws out a pending study on the Fire Department because may not reach its (Council's) preconceived staffing notions. This is not good public service by any means.
University South
on Apr 29, 2010 at 9:02 am
on Apr 29, 2010 at 9:02 am
It looks like the city council has already has the answer they want to staffing levels. Why bother with other opinions when you think you know it all already?
another community
on Apr 29, 2010 at 9:06 am
on Apr 29, 2010 at 9:06 am
@Retired Staffer,
You always seem to bring up SAP. What do you actual know about SAP?
Just curious.
another community
on Apr 29, 2010 at 9:36 am
on Apr 29, 2010 at 9:36 am
This issue is much bigger than it appears, the City Manager, some members of the City Council, and other Dept Heads are again up to the same old games and tricks. It reminds me of the old cowboy movies, "were going to give you a fair trial on Friday and then hang you on Saturday morning".
This was about the third time a study was started and funds spent only to be stopped. Obviously when the data is possibly not going to support their main goal and focus, to slash staffing, shut down units, reduce the number of paramedics or firefighters and possibly shut down neighborhood fire halls, etc they kill the study.
The Council's "this is not the type of study that we were looking for" says it all!
The City Manager and others have no data, no statistics, no demographics, no emergency response data, no idea what or where, when, type, etc the types of emergencies, where they are occuring, when.
The downtown fire hall in Palo Alto today is often times unstaffed and vacant many times at night!!! the most active area of Palo Alto often has no paramedics or firefighters at that hall or in that district!! the City Manager, Council, Fire Chief are gambling with peoples life and property. Does the City of Palo Alto need a study to tell them it's not good managing to leave the most active emergency response district void of emergency responders?? how about some common sense?
The City of Palo Alto has spent millions on consultants and studies the last 5 years, MILLIONS!! and for many areas that don't involve the protection of life and property.
Now all of a sudden $55,000 dollars is going to bankrupt the City in their view it seems. The City is bankrupt of elected officials and responsible managment in my opinion. Killing this recent study only shines a bright light on certain peoples long standing bias, grudges and more importantly, irresponsible managment at the possible expense of life and property.
Nobody has any real idea if the Fire Dept is or is not properly staffed, equipped, located, etc to best serve the population of Palo Alto and Stanford. Are industry standards being met? response times? how much has the number of emergencies increased? past or future projects going to impact emergency response? etc. Things like home and commercial insurance premiums are effected by Fire Dept status.
The bottom line is that the Finance Committee (made up of City Council members) and the City Manager gave the OK for the latest study, the Study the City Manager killed when he came under pressure by certain City Council members! The reason??? because the study might not might not be a two page report listing how blind slashing cuts to the Fire Dept including staffing and closure of Fire Halls will have no adverse impact to emergency response.
This whole situation smells like an outhouse in August! If 60 Min is looking for a segment on goverment coverup and dirty politics, then Spring in Northern California is a great time to tape.
The City Manager and City Council don't even have the backbone to blindly slash the Fire Dept themselves. As often happens these days they are trying to find a hired gun to do the crime for them. That way they can say some STUDY supported their cuts and reductions.
Common sense would tell most people that increasing numbers of emergency calls every year, past reductions in staffing and units, not enough ambulance units to handle the emergency medical calls TODAY, other Cities responding in Palo Alto (because PAFD units are on other calls alread) etc. Those simple facts alone would tell most people that does not support BLIND CUTS AND REDUCTIONS TO EMERGENCY SERVICES. But wait, The City Council and City Manager are not even open to having the issue studied or the actual data compiled!!!!
The City Council is not even going to recognize that THEY decided and ordered the Fire Dept to staff a unit 365 days a year for almost 20 years with Paramedics being paid OVERTIME. Then the Council and City Manager complain about the overtime budget?? they blame the Firefighters and their Union for the problem, when in fact it's not or was ever the firefightes decission or orders. How is it a paramedic unit is being staffed with overtime everyday of the week? suggestion to those in charge, staff the unit properly. But that might take a some hot air out of the SS Blow Hard the Council sails around on. Want to blame some people for the overtime budget? You can find them almost ever Monday evening in the City Council Chambers.
The Fire Chief should run for City Council after he retires, he lives in the City, holds a degree from Stanford and already walks right instep with the City Manager and City Council as it is. They will just have to change the some of the lyrics in the song, Three Blind Mice.
Can't wait to see more of the same responses post as in the past. All the "experst" telling the rest of us what the firefighters and paramedics do and don't do 24 hours a day. The vast majority have no idea about the details of the budget, cost recovery, response times, number of emergency calls, fire hall locations, pension facts and details, number of employees, past reductions in staffing, etc.
Oh wait, the City Council and City Manager want you to stay in the dark with them it seems, thats why they killed the study.
It's the new energy savings plan. Leave the lights off and keep everyone in the dark.
another community
on Apr 29, 2010 at 9:57 am
on Apr 29, 2010 at 9:57 am
First the Council votes to not let the people of Palo Alto have public hearings or say in the matter by telling people to not sign the Firefighters petition. The proposed measure that would only be asking to put the proposed measure on the regular November ballot.
I guess the Council feels the people should not have the option of public hearings or a vote in proposed Fire Hall closures or the reduction in service?
But now, they kill the study that might possibly have findings that go against the City Councils desire and the City Managers plan to make blind cuts to the Fire Dept.
No data or information gathering about the fire dept, no public hearings and no vote! Sounds like a third world country in the 1700's.
The City Manager, City Council and the Fire Chief might want to see if Diana Diamond is available to study, gather data and facts about the PAFD. I'm sure she will cost less than $55,000 and she appears to be the type of "expert" they will agree is un biased enough to provide them with what they want to hear and be told. She lives in the City so the money will stay in the local economy. Diamond also appears to have a real passion for the Fire Dept, she even wrote once "she should have been a firefighter". And most importantly she has also called for cutbacks in the Fire Dept many times already!
With that a given, I'm almost 100% sure she will produce a study that will call for reductions and cutbacks.
Crescent Park
on Apr 29, 2010 at 10:00 am
on Apr 29, 2010 at 10:00 am
Jake,
Thank you for your knowledge on both sides of the subject.
Crescent Park
on Apr 29, 2010 at 10:07 am
on Apr 29, 2010 at 10:07 am
A financial adviser that always advises clients to buy their friend's funds shows a certain vested interest. There are usually benefits for the adviser to do this...
Professorville
on Apr 29, 2010 at 11:15 am
on Apr 29, 2010 at 11:15 am
Will all the controversies, squabbles, and scandals in Palo Alto ever end? "Why can't we all just get along?".
Midtown
on Apr 29, 2010 at 11:17 am
on Apr 29, 2010 at 11:17 am
When will the City of Palo Alto stop hiring consultants they don't need. Is there no one who works at the City smart enough to get results? They make large salaries for doing what? Stop the waste and start thinking before you spend the money.
another community
on Apr 29, 2010 at 12:11 pm
on Apr 29, 2010 at 12:11 pm
Assistant City Manager said "staff is now proposing a new study that will go beyond the Standards of Coverage analysis, focusing on staffing and overtime expenditures"
It really sounds like "staff" is really shopping for a new consultant to go around the issue of Standards of Coverage" instead of even looking into the issue if Palo Alto has proper protection now? if improvements are needed and why? how emergency services can be provided better, differently, more streamlined, cost effective, etc. Liabilty, response times, recognized standards?
No, instead it appears that "Staff" and the City Council just want to make cuts and reduce staffing or close Fire Halls at any cost.
What a joke, most people don't even purchase homeowners insurance before they look into the details of what they need to protect, potential losses, past losses, cost, hazards, etc.
Would most people just instruct their insurance agent to reduce their coverage and premium prior to looking into the matter in detail?
The number of emergency calls is increasing every year, the PAFD was reduced greatly 30 years ago, less people and less equipment. Fire Services in Palo Alto are cheaper than most other Fire Depts period when you look at the budget figures and factor in revinue collections for medical insurance billing for the 1.5 ambulances, haz mat fees and Stanfords contract with Palo Alto for providing paramedic and fire protection to the Univeristy and the resident population of Stanford.
But instead of even conducting a study of the PAFD and it's resources, services, cost, service delivery, etc BLIND CUTS AND REDUCTIONS ARE BEING PROPOSED BY CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER.
If your protecting a larger population, responding to more and more emergency calls, protecting a world known area in the economy, a major University, in a very expensive area to say the least.
One would think on a common sense level your service levels and staffing MIGHT POSSIBLY NEED TO INCREASE, NOT BE SLASHED!! But nobody really knows or will know because the City Council is only looking into how to reduce staffing and costs regardless needs, liabilities, past reductions, real cost? etc.
Instead they spend money and time trying to get involved in global issues and the flavor of the day in regard to whatever is current world wide issues. They forget they were elected to help make Palo Alto choices and decissions, NOT State, National, International, Global ones.
If the Council wants to reduce cost's and staffing how about starting with the City Council???? does Palo Alto really need that large of a City Council?? It seems on the surface the City Council is "over staffed" and they get benefits like life long city employees do. Just reducing their numbers would save money.
Is a smaller City Council going to endanger human life? property loss? liability? increase insurance costs? Couldn't three or five people do the same exact thing the current City Council does?
I don't know about anyone else but peoples lives are greatly impacted more by less police, firefighters, recreation programs, libraries, parks, infrastructure condition and maint, schools, transportation, private and public services, etc Then by the SIZE OF THE CITY COUNCIL. Everyone else is being asked to reduce their size, cut costs, work more hours, do more with less, etc. But what has the City Council or City Managers office given up??? The City Managers Office is only growing in size as the years pass.
Community Center
on Apr 29, 2010 at 1:40 pm
on Apr 29, 2010 at 1:40 pm
I totally support the City of Palo Alto officials decision to scrap the report. Looks like we finally have city manager who is willing to take a stand and bring the costs of services back in to line with market demands.
Midtown
on Apr 29, 2010 at 4:12 pm
on Apr 29, 2010 at 4:12 pm
councilmember klein and city manager keene have discredited the proposed original report by an outside consultant even before obtainining any information claiming the report "might be biased" costing taxpayers $55,000. in turn, mr.klein and mr. keene have invalidated any chance of obtaining a report favoring their own biases regarding this subject because the public will question any and all information provided in their report as not being unbiased. the public will quite rightly demand a third report claiming that facts and figures were compromised by the city manager and city councilmember and are invalid. city council and city manager will then set up a blue/red ribbon committee to provide a smokescreen to cover their indecisions and biases hiring more out-of-state consultants costing taxpayers $100,000 to $200,000. is this how you define leadership managing a city?
Midtown
on Apr 29, 2010 at 5:41 pm
on Apr 29, 2010 at 5:41 pm
A firefighter gathering voter signatures recently told me that the city council has misrepresented the firefighters' demands. The firefighters want more staff--and an end to so much overtime going to the comparatively few.
If the city manager were to do the math properly, that proposal could be the best thing for us residents, as long as the staff increases aren't so huge as to absorb all the money currently spent on overtime (whose hourly rate is way higher than the rate for regular hours of work).
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 29, 2010 at 6:32 pm
on Apr 29, 2010 at 6:32 pm
Jardins it is far more expensive to hire additional firefighters when you not only have to pay them their regular salaries, but pay their benefits like pension and health care. It is much cheaper for the City to pay existing firefighters overtime.
another community
on Apr 29, 2010 at 6:32 pm
on Apr 29, 2010 at 6:32 pm
Palo Alto is in self-destruction mode -- better stop the cycle before it's too late.
It is reminiscent of "The Twilight Zone," esp. that episode where the spacemen just stand on a hill watching as the hysterical irrational population of the town below run around screaming at each other.
Pretty soon the real estate ads for Menlo Park, Redwood City, Los Altos, and Mountain View will read "Palo Alto Adjacent, why pay extra for the hassles of living there?"
East Palo Alto
on Apr 29, 2010 at 10:44 pm
on Apr 29, 2010 at 10:44 pm
To Taxpayer,
How do you measure market demands with a Fire Department.
Oh, by the way, the City of Palo Alto just hire 6 new Firefighters. So much for market demands.
Professorville
on Apr 30, 2010 at 8:16 am
on Apr 30, 2010 at 8:16 am
What is the top-heavy Human Resources Department being paid for if not to do staffing studies? Why consultants? Might as welloutsource all of that department's work.
another community
on Apr 30, 2010 at 8:49 am
on Apr 30, 2010 at 8:49 am
Taxpayer,
Danny already asked the question as well, How does one measure "market demands" in regard to Emergency Services?
It's pretty obvious that the number of emergency incidents that the Fire Dept has increased by the thousands per year since the mid 1970's. Same for the police dept. There are also less firefighters and paramedics today in the dept and on-duty than there was in the 1970's. But again, they respond to more incidents and protect a bigger population. The number of emergency calls has increased so much that people in Palo Alto have to wait for unit's from Menlo Park, Mountain View and Santa Clara County to respond (if they are available) into Palo Alto because the closer PAFD units are on another call already. It's called a delay inservice. In most every other industry that provides a service increased demands for services or products, would not motivate the CEO or Manager to reduce the number of employees or reduce the number of services provided. But were not talking about sales of garden furniture here, or coffee. This service the City Manager and City Council want to reduce is EMERGENCY SERVICES, ie Paramedic and Firefighters. The increase in emergency calls is not some fluke market trend either.
The number of emergency 911 calls and responses has increased every year, year after year, decade after decade.
It appears many people in this town get all or most of their "information" and "facts" from the few local free papers available all over the City. Instead of doing some real research or reading things like the City Budget that is available online or looking at the increase of employee's in other departments like the City Managers Office or the City Attorneys Office.
Again, I would ask anyone to provide an argument as to why the City of Palo Alto needs a City Council with so many members? why is five or seven members not enough? The Palo Alto City Council get benefits and costs the City money. They get the same health benefits that a 30-35 year police officer or firefighter get!
The real disgusting part of this is that the City Council is questioning overtime costs, when it was the City Council who directed the City Manager and Fire Chief to staff PAFD units with overtime for over 20+ years!!!! IT WAS THE CITY COUNCILS CALL and they now are trying to pin the issue on the firefighters and paramedics who are often times ORDERED to work the extra shifts. News flash everyone, the rank and file firefighters and paramedics don't make policy, hire or not hire, put units into service, etc.
That is the City Manager, City Council and Fire Chiefs call.
I'm sure if you ask a Paramedic coming off a 24 hour shift on Christmas morning, who then is ORDERED to work overtime on Christmas Day how they feel about taking the overtime blame? They would tell you they would rather be home with their family and get some rest before doing another 24 hour shift. I don't know about anyone else but I'd prefer to not be treated for a trauma or heart attack by an emergency worker who has not been on duty for 2-4 days straight!
Community Center
on Apr 30, 2010 at 8:55 am
on Apr 30, 2010 at 8:55 am
To Danny,
Measuring market demands would involve several methods. Here are a few:
1.) How many qualified individual apply for openings. If the applications are far greater than the openings, you might be over paying. My college roommate's son just got on with the San Diego County fire. He is getting paid $35K his first year. The kid was on an academic and athletic scholarship in college. Could have had a lot of other jobs but chose this career. Makes me think the salaries of PAFD might be high.
2.) What are folks with similar job skills being paid. So what does a firefighter do? Drive a truck, perform EMT work, do safety inspections. What to folks in the private sector with these skills make?
3.) What sort of education is required to be a firefighter and how are folks with similar backgrounds compensated.
The job of being a firefighter is in high demand. I think it is a great career, very rewarding, lots of camaraderie, challengs etc. But the compensation has become excessive. It is way out of line with demand.
The part that I find most frustrating is the fact that the firefighters have let their reputation as brave, hard working individuals become tarnished. When I think of the PAFD now I think of the ones I see strolling around Safeway and Costco who let themselves be led around by a union boss. That is just a fact and I think many other folks feel the same way.
Crescent Park
on Apr 30, 2010 at 9:24 am
on Apr 30, 2010 at 9:24 am
To Taxpayer,
County might be lower in pay, but I believe that he is working for Cal Fire (CDF). They start off around 35-40k per year.
Where does it say that you are entitled to high salary job just because you have a 4 year degree?
My son did not go to college, became a electrician (on the job training and a few night classes) and after 7 years, now makes $165K (base and OT),with full medical for him and his family.
There is a old saying... if you can't beat them, then join them.
Community Center
on Apr 30, 2010 at 9:35 am
on Apr 30, 2010 at 9:35 am
To Tim,
I am glad your son is doing well. He is probably very talented and works hard.
To be clear, I don't think I mentioned "a 4 year degree". I think the market demand should determine the pay, not the level of education. Often education and training make a person more employable. My guess is that your son did take classes and go through an apprenticeship program.
Also it is San Diego County not CDF (where my college son's roommate is working). My brother's son work for CDF. He never went to college but loves being a firefighter and thinks he is being compensated fairly.
Community Center
on Apr 30, 2010 at 11:51 am
on Apr 30, 2010 at 11:51 am
To Jake:
Your message brings up many different topics, some of which I have already replied to. But let me try to respectfully reply to more of your concerns.
I don’t have a problem with the PA City Council receiving health benefits. I don’t always agree with all of them on every decision. But I think in general they are hard working, civic minded folks who put in a lot of hours working to improve Palo Alto. The fact that they receive health benefits is a small expense compared to what they contribute.
I value “Emergency Services”. I also value teachers, recreation leaders, utility workers, nurses etc. I have a lot of relatives and friends who work for police and fire depts. They are all honest, hard working folks. The difference between you and I is that you seem to think some workers are more special than others. I’d rather have the market determine the level of salaries (not union bosses). If police and fire jobs are going unfilled due to lack on interest, than cities need to make some changes, including compensation. If there is overwhelming demand by qualified candidates, then compensation is probably too high. I believe the pay in Palo Alto for fire staff is too high.
You mention that “emergency incidents … has increased by the thousands per year” but you don’t provide any details. I believe the reality is that Palo Alto has about 200 fires a year. Most of the emergency calls now are for paramedics. Why does Palo Alto have so many “firefighters”? I don’t have all the answers but I’m pretty sure the existing situation is not optimal. Here are two examples. Over the weekend I was at Town & Country when someone had a medical emergency. Up rolls a big rig with 4 fire folks. One did all the work while the others stood around. Wouldn’t if be more efficient if one well equipped small van with two staff were dispatched? Do we really need the big fire truck and 4 firefighters? Here is another example. A few months ago there was a fire near my house. I never saw any flames or smelled smoke. But I think I counted eight PAFD vehicles that pulled up. There must have been over twenty fire folks on scene. Most of the fire staff just stood around. It looked to me like they had nothing else to do so they came to be part of the action. The house needed some repairs but the damage was not significant. I anticipate you are going to tell me that I am not an expert so I shouldn’t be commenting. Sorry but it is my tax dollars being used and I am a rational person. I can see the excess and inefficient use of resources. I believe the City Council is correct is seeking an independent report about PAFD operations.
Firefighters in Palo Alto had a great situation. They were getting incredible compensation, receiving great benefits, with a much desired schedule, doing a job they enjoyed. But they allowed a union boss to damage their reputation. When the city was in need and everyone else was helping out the fire union had the fire staff look selfish. Now the union boss is having the fire staff try to get a initiative on the ballot that will guarantee full employment for the fire union folks. It is really sad to see this happening but I think silver lining is that the PA City Council and population now has a better understanding of the situation.
another community
on Apr 30, 2010 at 8:23 pm
on Apr 30, 2010 at 8:23 pm
Taxpayer:
For someone who claims to "have a lot of relatives and friends who work for police and fire depts" you sure don't know much about what they do. Why don't you have these many relatives and friends educate you before you demonstrate your lack of knowledge in a public forum.
another community
on Apr 30, 2010 at 8:30 pm
on Apr 30, 2010 at 8:30 pm
Dear Taxpayer from Community Center area,
I would like to ask you what salery do you think is fair for these firefighters ??? Let me remind you that a gallon of gas is currently $3.28 and a gallon of milk is $4.15 . They need to provide for their families as well as you do.
As for that situation of you "not smelling smoke" at the house fire.... Have you thought about how the call came into the 911 dispatch? And do you realize how fast a fire can become out of control expecially in a dense populated area??? Obviously their response time was right on and situation under control. Be thankful for that.
By the way ...ALL THE PROFESSIONS(teachers,ulitity workers, nurses, police ) THAT YOU SAID YOU VALUE ARE UNIONIZED TOO.
As far as seeing a firefight shopping at a food store.... they need to eat too!!!
Downtown North
on Apr 30, 2010 at 9:59 pm
on Apr 30, 2010 at 9:59 pm
firefighter,
Taxpayer comes across as reasonable and informed. He/she is taking the time to "educate you". I suggest you learn to appreciate it and not continue to look bitter and inept in a public forum.
Menlo Park
on May 1, 2010 at 9:54 am
on May 1, 2010 at 9:54 am
Sign the petition, folks! The 'Pension reform' petition needs to be at the Menlo city clerk on Monday!
Don't let the city prevent the people of Menlo Park from having a say in the matter!
Barron Park
on May 1, 2010 at 7:23 pm
on May 1, 2010 at 7:23 pm
"But the city terminated the contract Friday, three days after a City Council committee heard a preliminary report on the study and learned that the consultant performing the study is affiliated with the International Association of Fire Chiefs -- a support network for fire chiefs and emergency -response leaders -- and has never recommended a staffing reduction."
What I find interesting is the fact that the city hired Independent Police Auditor, Mr. Genanco to write a report on - Bias-Based Policing and yet he's never, never, authored such a report nor does he have the credentials or qualifications to address - Bias-Based policing.
Yet he was able to finish his report / contract and received payment for his non-qualified, unscientific work on racial profiling. And yet the city terminates this agreement based on has - "never recommended a staffing reduction."
Mr. Genanco has very, very close ties with policing agencies throughout the greater LA area. I believe what city council is looking for is any report which supports there biased thinking.
Meadow Park
on May 1, 2010 at 10:48 pm
on May 1, 2010 at 10:48 pm
What do these highly paid city managers do with their time? Can't they "study" items?
That what they are suppossed to do isn't it.
Why don't we get rid of "managers" and turn it back to the mayor/council, if all they do is hire outside consultants to "study" problems instead of doing anything about it.
The city still gets $440 million in tax dollars to spend and calls a 2% shorfall a catastophe! H
ello, cut all salaries 2% and live within your income instead of fantasy.
Our family has to! Why can't you?
Greenmeadow
on May 2, 2010 at 10:12 am
on May 2, 2010 at 10:12 am
Tony Spitaleri has sent Palo Alto Fire into a burning building with cans of gasoline. The burning building is our city with huge budget problems. The cans of gasoline are the petitions for the firemen's entitlement initiative they are asking you to sign.
Clearly, Tony's petition drive has blown up in their faces. It is rank-and-file firemen and women who will be left trying to clean up this PR disaster for years to come. Good luck with that.
Charleston Meadows
on May 2, 2010 at 10:23 am
on May 2, 2010 at 10:23 am
The problem is, no matter how the rest of us are pulling in our belts and city staff compensation has gone to the moon, unions refuse to give up anything. They just want more, more, more.
There comes a point, we are well past it in Palo Alto, where citizens must stand up and say, "Enough."
Should the fire featherbedding initiative make it to the ballot, this will be a good opportunity to hand these guys the biggest defeat ever for one of the most self-serving initiatives ever.
PG&E's Prop 16 (PG&E's right to monopoly) is another attempted power grab that citizens must recognize and soundly defeat.
These clowns are all looking for support from the 'sucker born every minute.'
We can not allow ourselves to be that sucker.
South of Midtown
on May 2, 2010 at 9:31 pm
on May 2, 2010 at 9:31 pm
Charlie,
What will blow up in your face is when they close the fire station close to your home and your family has a medical or fire and your waiting and waiting and waiting.