My Letter to the ESD 4 Board President
Subject: A few follow up thoughts and comments about our telephone discussion
The answer to your question about why I was present at Saturdays all ESD meeting? I was asked to attend by Travis County, but invite aside, I am a taxpayer and with or without such an invite I have every right to participate in these gatherings. I also have every right to be heard and treated with fairness and respect.
Let me wrap this up with one last comment and standing offer. I find no enjoyment battling with a neighbor and I regret this palpable rift between us, but understand you drew this goofy battle line, it's not my choice or doing. I would have and still do prefer a different course of action, one where we acknowledge how we both seek the best for our neighbors and friends and any differences are opportunities to better understand each others views. In turn we use the differences to guide us toward solutions that compliments and strengthens what each seeks for family and friends and the institution we rely on for our fire and medical safety. It's the less common path taken and is never easy because it requires a wisdom and belief in the honorable intentions of others and a willingness to put all the issues on the table and be open to change. Done right, however, the approach is very constructive for resolving differences and finding beneficial solutions. Should you ever decide you'd like to end this unnecessary and life draining feud in a more positive, constructive manner, just give me a call. My preference is peace and friendly co-existence over the hurtfulness of an ugly tit for tat war of words.
Subject: A few follow up thoughts and comments about our telephone discussion
Art,
I regret you see me as some nefarious opponent for raising very legitimate issues about ESD 4's operational ability to meet its core fire protection responsibilities. But my concerns are factually based and validated by my open record request for information. I make no apologies for asking the hard questions about the services I receive. From where I sit, our community could do far better with a real fire department that actually has the capacity for managing the day to day fire and medical protection duties. Most disappointing is that in your position as ESD Board President you categorically find nothing wrong with ESD4's capacity and performance. For those of us who have to pay the bills, including higher insurance premiums, and get anything but the most minimal of fire services, its not such a great deal. in fact it's a pretty bad deal.
I regret you see me as some nefarious opponent for raising very legitimate issues about ESD 4's operational ability to meet its core fire protection responsibilities. But my concerns are factually based and validated by my open record request for information. I make no apologies for asking the hard questions about the services I receive. From where I sit, our community could do far better with a real fire department that actually has the capacity for managing the day to day fire and medical protection duties. Most disappointing is that in your position as ESD Board President you categorically find nothing wrong with ESD4's capacity and performance. For those of us who have to pay the bills, including higher insurance premiums, and get anything but the most minimal of fire services, its not such a great deal. in fact it's a pretty bad deal.
An ESD Board has one fundamental responsibility: to be an advocate, a fiduciary, for the the taxpayers it serves and rigorously insure their interest comes first all the time. The mechanism for such oversight is best described as an arms-length relationship with the ESD fire department management. When an ESD Board loses that ability and assumes the role of defender of the organization, its has lost its abilities to fulfill its fiduciary duties to the taxpayer. Eventually, someone like me, who knows something about emergency services, will stand up and start asking questions because that is the way its done in our society. I (we) have a right to know about the things I (we) pay taxes for and a right to challenge actions that are not in my (our) best interest.
Your efforts to insinuate I am driven by some "hidden agenda" is a tried and true political combat tactic to discredit the legitimacy of my right to ask questions and your responsibilities to give me fair hearing. I still stand by my offer to answer any of your suspicions about my motives. Characterizing me as an some "operative" may help you justify your unwillingness to engage with me on a fact for fact basis but you and whoever else at ESD 4 thinks I am on some insidious mission to unjustly discredit ESD 4 is totally without merit. Any thoughtful person who looks at this dust up can quickly figure out I have only one interest and motive: better services. Granted I do have my preference for who I believe could provide better fire protection, Austin Fire Department in this case, but there is no hocus pocus involved, its straight-forward point by point comparison of who offers the better services. Comparing fire-fighter experience, training, station locations, response time, resource capacity (bench depth), cost for service (same as ESD 4's fire department) and impact on my insurance premiums ($750 savings annually), its pretty easy to find the better choice for the $$$'s. Why the ESD 4 Board can't do this simple comparison is beyond me but its clear given what we pay both in taxes and in the insurance penalty, where the best choice is.
This is not rocket science, the simple math is this: ESD 4's eight (8) on-duty staff, spread out between three locations that are from 15-25 minutes apart in travel time, cannot effectively and safely manage anything more than a very small slow burning wild fire, dumpster fire or car fire. House fires of any substance, commercial fires (like the flea market debacle) or moderate to large wild land fires are completely outside their abilities. And consistently leaning on the good will of other fire departments to back fill what ESD4 can't do and should be able to do themselves is an unethical way to conduct this critical public safety function. Yet that is how your agency functions everyday and you appear to endorse and approve it.
Remember the 3 alarm flea market fire in your district in August, 2009? That should have been the wake-up call something was amiss. ESD 4 was suppose to be the lead agency yet only one engine and a "acting" ESD 4 Battalion Chief responded. None of ESD 4's executive command participated in the management of the fire, not one. If AFD had not thrown in all it's resources including on-scene command, it's any one's guess what the loss of lives and property would have been.
Your claim ESD 4 has "auto aid" with Westlake Fire- ESD 9 as some justification your capacity is at the level required to manage the variety of fire responses real fire departments are able to handle themselves is erroneous on two fronts. First, ESD 9 offers zero relevant help to the problems ESD 4 has in its ability to manage any call of real substance. ESD 9 is simply too far away to be able to help in the required timeline for effective fire fighting. Second, in my discussions with AFD Command, as recently as yesterday, they reaffirmed they will not allow ESD 9 to enter into an auto aid with ESD 4 unless they are ready to give up their agreement with AFD and I am betting that won't happen. Unless something has changed over the past 24 hours, ESD 4 does not have auto aid with ESD 9. Additionally, AFD has indicated they are not inclined to extend Auto Aid to ESD 4 because the ESD 4 fire department offers them no quid pro quo. Its not an equal relationship which is the premise for auto aid agreements. (I'll be happy to share the AFD comments they gave me on this topic if you are interested).
With regard to ESD 4's recent ISO rating change from a 6 to a modified 4, I am familiar with the ISO process and as much as you are trying to suggest this reaffirms ESD 4's capacity to serve, I have to throw the caution flag. Much of the rating has to do with elements of fire protection that is outside of ESD 4's direct efforts. For example, water availability (40% of the rating), and integrated 9-1-1 communications process and common fire ground radio frequencies (10%) , none of these are the result of ESD 4's direct efforts or abilities, they are supplemental and represent what others have done to improve critical support services that impact fire-fighting capacity for the region. All of these improvement were done by the City of Austin, Travis County, Municipal Utility Districts, to name a few. ESD 4's ISO adjustment is because it co-exists within a urban / suburban infrastructure that is improving, not because the fire department has achieved great strides in overall performance. I'll be generous and give ESD 4 credit for some improvements (like its commitment to 3 person minimal staffing, a kudo and a new brush truck, another kudo), but we all know given the ESD's financial health, those improvements are not likely sustainable. So again, the drum banging about ISO is another rather shady and disingenuous way to imply something that really isn't as substantive as it appears.
Your efforts to insinuate I am driven by some "hidden agenda" is a tried and true political combat tactic to discredit the legitimacy of my right to ask questions and your responsibilities to give me fair hearing. I still stand by my offer to answer any of your suspicions about my motives. Characterizing me as an some "operative" may help you justify your unwillingness to engage with me on a fact for fact basis but you and whoever else at ESD 4 thinks I am on some insidious mission to unjustly discredit ESD 4 is totally without merit. Any thoughtful person who looks at this dust up can quickly figure out I have only one interest and motive: better services. Granted I do have my preference for who I believe could provide better fire protection, Austin Fire Department in this case, but there is no hocus pocus involved, its straight-forward point by point comparison of who offers the better services. Comparing fire-fighter experience, training, station locations, response time, resource capacity (bench depth), cost for service (same as ESD 4's fire department) and impact on my insurance premiums ($750 savings annually), its pretty easy to find the better choice for the $$$'s. Why the ESD 4 Board can't do this simple comparison is beyond me but its clear given what we pay both in taxes and in the insurance penalty, where the best choice is.
This is not rocket science, the simple math is this: ESD 4's eight (8) on-duty staff, spread out between three locations that are from 15-25 minutes apart in travel time, cannot effectively and safely manage anything more than a very small slow burning wild fire, dumpster fire or car fire. House fires of any substance, commercial fires (like the flea market debacle) or moderate to large wild land fires are completely outside their abilities. And consistently leaning on the good will of other fire departments to back fill what ESD4 can't do and should be able to do themselves is an unethical way to conduct this critical public safety function. Yet that is how your agency functions everyday and you appear to endorse and approve it.
Remember the 3 alarm flea market fire in your district in August, 2009? That should have been the wake-up call something was amiss. ESD 4 was suppose to be the lead agency yet only one engine and a "acting" ESD 4 Battalion Chief responded. None of ESD 4's executive command participated in the management of the fire, not one. If AFD had not thrown in all it's resources including on-scene command, it's any one's guess what the loss of lives and property would have been.
Your claim ESD 4 has "auto aid" with Westlake Fire- ESD 9 as some justification your capacity is at the level required to manage the variety of fire responses real fire departments are able to handle themselves is erroneous on two fronts. First, ESD 9 offers zero relevant help to the problems ESD 4 has in its ability to manage any call of real substance. ESD 9 is simply too far away to be able to help in the required timeline for effective fire fighting. Second, in my discussions with AFD Command, as recently as yesterday, they reaffirmed they will not allow ESD 9 to enter into an auto aid with ESD 4 unless they are ready to give up their agreement with AFD and I am betting that won't happen. Unless something has changed over the past 24 hours, ESD 4 does not have auto aid with ESD 9. Additionally, AFD has indicated they are not inclined to extend Auto Aid to ESD 4 because the ESD 4 fire department offers them no quid pro quo. Its not an equal relationship which is the premise for auto aid agreements. (I'll be happy to share the AFD comments they gave me on this topic if you are interested).
With regard to ESD 4's recent ISO rating change from a 6 to a modified 4, I am familiar with the ISO process and as much as you are trying to suggest this reaffirms ESD 4's capacity to serve, I have to throw the caution flag. Much of the rating has to do with elements of fire protection that is outside of ESD 4's direct efforts. For example, water availability (40% of the rating), and integrated 9-1-1 communications process and common fire ground radio frequencies (10%) , none of these are the result of ESD 4's direct efforts or abilities, they are supplemental and represent what others have done to improve critical support services that impact fire-fighting capacity for the region. All of these improvement were done by the City of Austin, Travis County, Municipal Utility Districts, to name a few. ESD 4's ISO adjustment is because it co-exists within a urban / suburban infrastructure that is improving, not because the fire department has achieved great strides in overall performance. I'll be generous and give ESD 4 credit for some improvements (like its commitment to 3 person minimal staffing, a kudo and a new brush truck, another kudo), but we all know given the ESD's financial health, those improvements are not likely sustainable. So again, the drum banging about ISO is another rather shady and disingenuous way to imply something that really isn't as substantive as it appears.
From a business standpoint, ESD 4's fire department is in financial distress and fast approaching financial failure. Your own Auditor states that in his 2010 audit introduction. ESD 4 has been mortally wounded by city annexations and any claims it can indeed spring back from this death spiral is sheer fantasy. Of course it can continue to exist as a shell operation as long as there are financial reserves to off set the annual deficit but that's not the way to run any business, especially one involved in life-safety. To presume the ESD can still provide effective fire protection is nothing less than managerial vanity and arrogance that borders on gross ignorance of the facts. More importantly its an abdication of responsibilities for appropriately serving the taxpayers. The only responsible choice is to either merge with or contract out the direct services of fire response to a more capable and qualified fire department and its my professional opinion the Board should have been actively seeking that remedy several years ago (certainly after the 2009 Flea Market Fire).
Here's the bigger reality for any and all ESD's that co-exist next to a growing city like Austin. Their collective future is not growth, because there is no where to grow, but decline due to city annexation. ESD 4 is just the first of many casualties in this natural evolutionary process. The responsible ESD Board would be actively seeking ways to either join with other ESD's to maximize services and manage cost or developing a transition plan with the city to takeover direct fire protection responsibilities. ESD's that get lost in the vanity of identity and see their role as defenders of the past, are on a road trip to no where. While it might buy time for the ESD employee's, the issue should never be about the staff but about those being served. Considerations about staff are indeed valid but not when that is prioritized over what is best for the customer.
Here's the bigger reality for any and all ESD's that co-exist next to a growing city like Austin. Their collective future is not growth, because there is no where to grow, but decline due to city annexation. ESD 4 is just the first of many casualties in this natural evolutionary process. The responsible ESD Board would be actively seeking ways to either join with other ESD's to maximize services and manage cost or developing a transition plan with the city to takeover direct fire protection responsibilities. ESD's that get lost in the vanity of identity and see their role as defenders of the past, are on a road trip to no where. While it might buy time for the ESD employee's, the issue should never be about the staff but about those being served. Considerations about staff are indeed valid but not when that is prioritized over what is best for the customer.
The answer to your question about why I was present at Saturdays all ESD meeting? I was asked to attend by Travis County, but invite aside, I am a taxpayer and with or without such an invite I have every right to participate in these gatherings. I also have every right to be heard and treated with fairness and respect.
I have never been your critic, in fact I have repeatedly represented you as a kind, big hearted man who I felt always wanted to do what was right. When the AFD Union told me their exchange with you left them with a much different impression I told them that was not the Art I knew. After our recent exchange I'm realizing my characterization was perhaps too generous. Your efforts to minimize and deny any and all of my concerns, and then grossly exaggerate the capabilities of the ESD 4 fire department in spite of the facts, is pretty disappointing. In fact, I am still stunned with your reaction. I never expected that from you.
Let me wrap this up with one last comment and standing offer. I find no enjoyment battling with a neighbor and I regret this palpable rift between us, but understand you drew this goofy battle line, it's not my choice or doing. I would have and still do prefer a different course of action, one where we acknowledge how we both seek the best for our neighbors and friends and any differences are opportunities to better understand each others views. In turn we use the differences to guide us toward solutions that compliments and strengthens what each seeks for family and friends and the institution we rely on for our fire and medical safety. It's the less common path taken and is never easy because it requires a wisdom and belief in the honorable intentions of others and a willingness to put all the issues on the table and be open to change. Done right, however, the approach is very constructive for resolving differences and finding beneficial solutions. Should you ever decide you'd like to end this unnecessary and life draining feud in a more positive, constructive manner, just give me a call. My preference is peace and friendly co-existence over the hurtfulness of an ugly tit for tat war of words.
Sincerely,
Gordon Bergh
ESD 4 Taxpayer
ESD 4 Taxpayer
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.