Alameda Firefighters’ Association President Expresses Disapproval with The City Council

By Erica Madison

Imagine that a fire has started at a residence on Beach Road; fortunately the nearest fire station is only a ten minute ride a way, unfortunately the station is closed. <more>

Fortunately this didn’t happen on Aug. 8, 2009. A fire started at a residence on Beach Road, but with the help of three engines and two trucks, the fire was immediately and successfully subdued.

According to a press release on www.SaveAlamedaFireHouses.com, the success was largely due to the rapid deployment of truck one. Truck one came from station one on Encinal Ave., which is roughly less than a 10 minute ride to Beach Road.

Unfortunately, Station One will close, due to a Brown Out program instituted by the City Manager Anne Marie Gallant and Fire Chief Dave Kapler. The program closes stations down whenever a station has less than a staffing of 24 fire fighting personnel.

“It (under staffing) could be due to jury duty, on the job injury leave, Comp time, military leave, etc.” said firefighter’s association president Domenick Weaver.

According to www.SaveAlamedaFireHouses.com, Station Five has been closed since April 1, 2009.

The Brown Out program has been in operation since January 26, 2009.  But the program was modified over time, when people realized the initial plan was not working.

“It (Brown Outs) led to many increased response times and potential for negative outcomes on both fire and medical responses. It required moving firefighters from one station to another and led to more units out of service at shift change. It was inconsistent from day to day and made dispatch of resources difficult.” Said Weaver.

Since January 2009, over two hundred emergency calls were delayed, due to the Brown Out program, according to Alameda firefighters.

In an effort to end the Brown Out program the Fire and Emergency Medical Services Minimum Protection initiative was presented to City Council August 3, 2009. The initiative asks for a mandatory minimum fire personnel staffing of 27.

However, this request directly contradicts the International City and Council Management Association report, stating the mandatory minimum should be 21.

“The ICMA report is a cooked report. They have hidden all drafts that went back and forth prior to release of the final document.” Said Weaver.

In the same city council meeting, Mr. Weaver also said, Agenda 4b (the Fire and Emergency Medical Services Minimum Protection initiative) is misleading the voters, by making it seem as if the initiative is asking for additional firefighting personnel. However, they are only asking that the initial three firefighting personnel positions be reinstated.

It should also be noted what is missing from Agenda 4b, is the firefighters’ own report commissioned by Local 689.

“Local 689 commissioned a detailed staffing and operational analysis from the International Association of Firefighters in July of 2008 and they actually recommend 34 firefighters on duty a day.” said Weaver.

The main concern on hiring three more fire personnel stems not from safety but from the lack of financing. It has been estimated that the addition of three more fire personnel per week will cost $4 million dollars annually.

But Mr. Weaver said, the firefighters have offered numerous ways to cut back on cost, including a pledge by firefighters to not take a pay increase.

“We have suggested an effective departmental reorganization that would have saved about $650,000 and that would have maintained staffing of all Engines, Trucks and Ambulances. We have offered concessions to our Comp Time usage that could have saved another $600,000-$900,000.” said Weaver.

Despite this, the City Council has delayed putting the ballot up for a vote until November 2011.

“I am incredibly disappointed,” Weaver told Action Alameda News, “in the council’s action to delay the voice and vote of the people to weigh in on their levels of Fire and Emergency service until 2011. All five of them ran their campaigns on the importance of public safety and we have vigilantly kept them informed on operational issues/problems, and fiscal responsibility.”

Letter to the Editor of the Alameda Sun: Beach safety focus

Editor:

I am an Alameda resident, father of three children, and a Alameda firefighter.

I feel that it is my responsibility to respond to the article, "Be Safe in Water," printed in the Alameda Sun by the Fire Department administration, July 16. The message regarding "Beach Safety Tips" in reference to "lifeguards" can be confusing, and somewhat misleading, so I feel it incumbent on me to clarify certain facts regarding water rescue and safety.

The article advises the reader to "swim near a lifeguard" and to "ask a lifeguard about the conditions before entering unfamiliar water." The public needs to be aware that there are no lifeguards on duty anywhere on Crown Beach's 2.5 mile stretch or elsewhere along the surrounding natural water areas of Alameda.

In 1999, the City Council approved the implementation of a Surface Water Rescue Swimmer program to provide Alameda firefighters with the necessary skills and resources to provide water rescue response to all waterfront areas of Alameda's jurisdiction.

This program was instituted due to the absence of lifeguards, the significant delays of water rescue response from the Coast Guard and Sheriff's Dive Teams, and the lack of certified water rescue training for Alameda firefighters.

After the death of two adolescents below the Bay Farm Island Bridge a few years earlier, the Fire Department urged the City to support a safer, more efficient water rescue response capability, which the Fire Department has since offered, until now.

Last year, the City Council approved a budget presented by former City Manager Debra Kurita and current Fire Chief Dave Kapler that has dismantled the Fire Department Surface Water Rescue capability.

Due to the budget reductions, the necessary recertification of our water rescue swimmers for OSHA compliance was not funded.

As of March 16, 2009, the Fire Department administration issued an operational status change, placing the surface water rescue swimmer program on hold. According to the status change, "all previously qualified Rescue Swimmers shall not enter the water for an active incident until further notice."

What does all of this mean to a swimmer in distress? It means that firefighters may not swim to or use the rescue boat and rescue boards to approach a distressed swimmer in the water.

Firefighters are permitted to toss a 75-foot water rescue rope to the victim, provided the victim is within 75 feet of the shore, to effect a rescue. The Fire Department Incident Commander will request that the County Dispatcher contact Coast Guard for assistance.

So, in the absence of lifeguards, what do I recommend for a "safe and smart" time at the beach?

Don't enter the water with more than one non-proficient swimmer at a time. Having three children of my own, it's very easy to lose track of one while supervising the others. Keep your eyes on and stay close to the non-proficient swimmer at all times. Even in shallow water, maintain a 1:1 ratio. The waves, swells and tides can be challenging for young ones and it only takes a split-second for tragedy to occur.

- Steve Floyd

 

Honorable Mayor, City Council Members and City Manager Ann Marie Gallant,
 
As hard as we have tried, you still do not seem to understand the need for our department, YOUR fire department, to be well prepared and fully able to respond quickly when our citizens call 9-1-1 for an emergency.  This has nothing to do with how many fires we have----it has everything to do with every fire we have, and every emergency we respond to.

You are probably tired of hearing our reasons why The Alameda Fire Department must be the only department that does not get cut in any area related to our ability to respond and protect our citizens.  We are unyielding with our reasons and this position.  We are absolutely the MOST IMPORTANT service, along with the police department, in Alameda.

Given the increasing annual call volume, the number of multi-story wood-framed buildings, our historic firefighting needs and the unique geographical issues that come with our island city, our community needs a fully funded and staffed fire department more than ever.
 

The old saying, "A picture is worth a thousand words", is our next attempt to help you understand.  Understand that if our community does not have an adequately trained fire department with the right number of available firefighters and an ability to arrive within minutes of a reported fire, what is there worth having in the community?  We believe this responsibility comes as part of the leadership expectations held in your positions.

We may not have many fires as compared to the other calls for service we provide, but when we do have one, please understand how real the challenges and impacts can be, like those recently experienced at the June 14, 2009, Inverness Ave fire.  Four firefighters were injured, one with serious burn injuries, while fighting this typical house fire.  It is indeed unfortunate, but with multiple calls occurring in the city and Station 5 being closed, a delayed response for the entire balance of the First Alarm Assignment and subsequent Second Alarm Assignment requested to the scene(made up entirely of mutual aid fire companies from Oakland) occurred, likely resulting in additional property damage. 

Our members fear this type of outcome becoming more common place with the latest proposal for an additional fire company (the Ladder Truck at Fire Station 1 – Encinal Av / Park St) being browned-out nearly daily.  The fire department already depletes all of its’ resources several times a week, leaving no fire or EMS coverage in Alameda.  With an additional cut proposed, this may become a daily occurrence.

The below video of an apartment building fire will illustrate the challenges I have mentioned, very dramatically.  Just four years ago, there was a similar apartment building fire here at which Alameda firefighters rescued three citizens and evacuated dozens more through dense, black smoke.  The likelihood of this type of a fire happening in our own community is real.  And when it does, because it will, the question will be: did we have the needed number of available firefighters, open firehouses and response times to assure that those citizens had a chance?

Please take a moment to watch and listen to the below video.  There is every reason to believe the fire in this video can and will eventually happen in any community. The difference is, you as the Mayor and City Council members, you as the City Manager and we as Alameda's Firefighters only have ONE community to be concerned about:  OURS.

Please check out this video!

 
Respectfully Submitted,

Domernick Weaver
President, Alameda Firefighter's Association
IAFF Local 689

 

 

Penny-wise, pound-foolish

Editor:

In January I listened as some of you asked our city manager if there wasn't some other way to stay within the budget without compromising the safety of Alameda citizens. Back then, the fire chief confidently predicted that the cuts would not have an adverse effect more than about 15 times in a year. So far, there have been two major fires in the past five months and both of them were severely impacted by limited staffing. Each time [the chief] went on record saying the cutbacks were not a factor in the fire.

The house on Inverness re-ignited during the early morning hours because the fire department's administrative staff refused to pay overtime to keep a fire watch. Last month the chief laid off two firefighters, while again expressing his confidence that it would have no impact on the department's ability to fight fires.

Now, he is dismayed to discover how much overtime is costing to keep staffing levels at the agreed-on 24 men per shift. His solution? Not to hire back the two people he laid off, but to cut the staffing level to 21 personnel per shift. That is six personnel fewer than the absolute minimum recommended in the independent study commissioned by the city. If they are still manning three ambulances, that means that of those 21 persons, just 15 will be available to fight fires. And if all the ambulances are transporting patients off-island, it also means that the paramedic staff on the trucks and engines will be directed to medical emergencies first. Heaven help us all if there is another conflagration like the one on Inverness.

Clearly, with fewer firefighters battling each fire, the danger to each of them escalates exponentially. It occurs to me that any chief who is this unconcerned about the safety of his firefighters is hardly the man to be trusted with the safety of the citizens of Alameda.

Since that meeting in January, the city manager who started this whole mess has left her position, and instead of the $180,000 per year she was paid, her replacement was hired for a quarter of a million dollars. What happened to the council's intent to save money? And why are you saving money by taking from the budgets of essential services and spending it on salary increases for management and legal services?

The city might not really need four lawyers now, but after a few fires where lives are lost due to delayed response time or inadequate resources to fight them effectively, you might need to hire even more of them. Of course, they cost much more than a firefighter, so keeping the firefighters and limiting the legal staff of our city would probably be a better use of funds.