We had our meeting last night and here’s what happened: Our Attorney presented the changes that were made to the proposed fire code. Next up, the VFD presented their concerns with the proposed code. The Rescue Squad presented their concerns after that and generally echoed the concerns of the VFD. I suppose that if I were to boil down the concerns of the volunteers they would fall into two broad categories:
1. The volunteers believe that there should be a vote of all parties in the public safety committee in order to enact new SOP’s or other policies. Currently the career chief would be required to consult the volunteers when proposing new SOP’s but there is no real vote. Wrapped up in this idea of a vote in this committee is really the idea of more control for all parties. More control would address some of the other concerns presented (in my view).
2. The second issue has to do with the budget. The proposed code calls for a unified budget of all organizations after 3 years. The volunteers would be more comfortable with seperate budgets.
After the volunteers presentation and some Council discussion, I proposed that we have the staff draft a version of the code that included the notion of a vote and present it for discussion (but not a vote) next Monday night. This would give the Council a clear choice – vote or no vote in the public safety committee. The other Council members felt as though it was too soon for that. The career chief also indicated that he felt he was due some remarks on the volunteer’s remarks.
At this point, the Council decided to schedule another work session on the 14th to have more discussion and to hear from the career staff. I’m not available that night so I’ll have to wait to hear what goes on.
January 5, 2010 at 10:15 am
You have got to be kidding me Right? Why don’t we vote on when the volunteers and carer staff can use the restroom also. You hired the Chief now let him do his job. If this weren’t a public safety issue it would be comical. This department has become the laughing stock across NOVA and it is because of the volunteers. and their actions. Now take action Council and put the man you hired in charge. If the volunteers don’t want to stay then they can go somewhere else. Otherwise they can shut the mouths and serve the City. I don’t want any of them to think I don’t appreciate all their efforts, but their crying is now affecting the safe operation of the FD.
January 5, 2010 at 3:55 pm
Yeah, I don’t see it that way. Either they are your partners and you give them due consideration or not. Same is true of career and GMVRS. I see nothing wrong with drafting an optional version for consideration. I don’t know which version would ultimately be selected but it is no bad thing to see what the option looks like.
Also, the fire levy would go up a fair amount if the volunteers departed en masse. Regardless of whether you believe they would quit or not, it is a consideration as I don’t hear people clamoring for higher taxes no matter what it’s for….quite the opposite.
January 5, 2010 at 9:30 pm
Andy, I have been reading this version, and this time around I have more markup than before…and questions slowly brewing. Once I get it sorted out, I’ll be putting it to paper.
I have accepted an invitation from Mo Stokely to come over to the Firehouse and sit to discuss viewpoints. We talked a bit today on the phone, and he was kind enough to send me the points the VFD raised last night. Some of them are matching what I am seeing in this version that raise questions.
I too support your having a draft developed where the approval process includes the opportunity for the volunteer membership of the companies to have the chance to concur/nonconcur with a draft policy/procedure. I asked Mo if I could look at their Bylaws tomorrow as I would like to come to an understanding of the VFD’s membership entitlements. Note that I don’t use the word “vote” – the structure of some of the areas which have lead to the greatest bones of contention are really more of how it is more partnership than directive – and more staff action type stuff in a coordinated effort.
This is not to take away from Chief Wood’s powers or duties – more to enable his role as a F&R administrative coordinator to “prepare” (as in standard format) then “coordinate the approval of” (versus simply approve) all the policies & procedures. We make the point upfront in this draft to say “equitably administered”, and when nonprofit entities are included as partners versus contractor, consideration of their membership under Bylaws must be considered. I still have to work this wording out and check some things.
But as you may see by these two paragraphs, I am trying to figure the “vote” thing. 🙂
I also see where the process of how the unified budget will work is gonna take some educating. Beancounter world stuff will through people for a loop if verbage is tossed out without a diagram to explain it. I know this one from experience..LOL!
Still think you are doing a heck of a job trying to moderate all this and I commend you for that, my friend!
January 6, 2010 at 12:00 am
A bit more time and consideration will do no harm. Folks on all sides of the debate have given years of service to the community. A few more weeks to see if acceptable compromise language can be worked out is deserved. Kudos to the council for exhibiting patience and going the extra mile here.
January 6, 2010 at 11:08 am
Ray, you restore my hope for citizen involvement. Thanks to you and rich for the kind words. It is frustrating at times but we’ll get it figured out!
January 6, 2010 at 1:54 pm
Manassas isn’t the only local jurisdiction struggling with a fire and rescue re-org:
Cumberland, MD
Firefighters’ plan eliminates chief
Department’s counter to city’s reorganization proposal keeps active duty positions
http://www.times-news.com/local/local_story_005231223.html
January 7, 2010 at 6:47 pm
Great Article in the Washington Post. This meeting wasn’t about flower pots in old town, it was a very important meeting that the Mayor and Council members knew of the importance. You don’t just forget to tell individuals to have a prepared response. I must say, this is bad politics, my City is better than that and I would hope our experienced Council and Mayor are better than that too. Whoever coordinated this work session has really disappointed me. You all have done a wonderful job up to this point, please keep it up and reframe from these kind of tactics.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/05/AR2010010503597.html
January 7, 2010 at 9:20 pm
I don’t care what anyone says, this is some of the worse politics I have ever seen in Manassas. I sure hope Council, yes councilman Harrover you too, wake up and see the danger you are putting the citizens of Manassas and both the career and volunteers fire fighters at risk. I’m sorry, public safety departments are not the place to have voting on operational issues. Would you consider allowing a vote on police department issues? You need to have a smart and strong manager in charge. IMHO, this is outrageous, a joke and just plain stupid and you, council, need to wake up. Right now the volunteers do not have the best interest of the citizens at heart, they only have their own well being in mind. I don’t know ray and Rich or if either of you have ever been involved in a fire department, but if you had, you would know this is just plain dumb. And I am telling you, this issue is being discussed in fire stations all over Fairfax and you are being ridiculed.
January 7, 2010 at 11:48 pm
This has nothing to do with politics but lots to do with tradition. The South understands and – perhaps unduly to some – treasures tradition. A tradition may need to be changed but when the local citizenry have contributed to that tradition for generations, the tradition cannot be lightly discarded. It would be lots simpler and cleaner for the council to just get it over with, but they are not looking for an easy way out. They are respecting tradition.
There is no doubt in my mind that the council will very soon be prepared to make a firm decision. Indeed, it will need to. And that decision will need to be clear and unambiguous. But in the meantime, out of respect for an honored volunter tradition in Manassas, they are closely examining alternatives.
If they end up ruling “against” the wishes of the volunteers, the volunteers will have, or at least should have, an full appreciation that the council did not act arbitrarily and gave them every consideration. That sounds like good old fashioned America to me.
I’m not shocked that some or even many in Fairfax may ridicule Manassas. We are clearly more old fashioned.
January 8, 2010 at 12:10 am
Rich, I respect the tradition. But public safety is no place for tradition when it affects my family and your families safety. I can tell you, there is no way this is not affecting operations in the fire house. What is so surprising is many of the volunteers are career guys somewhere else, they should know better. It is time to allow the chief to run the department like he was hired to do. It will not work the way the volunteers are proposing, can’t and won’t work! If I really thought the volunteers were putting the citizens first I would support the process, but they have continually made statements in public they are trying to save THEIR tradition. I could care less about their traditions, I only care about my families safety and the safety of both the career and volunteer staff.
January 8, 2010 at 12:55 am
Rich, I think traditions are great but, in this case they are getting in the way of progress. I appreciate the work that the volunteers contribute throughout our city. My problem is in the way our government handled this last work session. All parties need to be involved, it is my belief that Chief Wood is being deliberately shut out of the process. Up until now Chief Wood has presented at every meeting and I can only assume he has met with Council members to discuss his issues but, he needs to speak in public formats as well, as a citizen I want to know where he stands on the ordinance. I know that all the volunteers save the city money, not just the fire and rescue volunteers. I don’t like the fact that it seems as though it is being used as a bargaining chip. My fear is if it used successfully in this situation, then it will be used over and over again. It has always been my belief that if change prompts you to fold up the tents and go home, than you are here for the wrong reasons. Our City will do what is best for our citizens, if this is to be changes in the way the volunteers do business and some of the traditions as well, then the volunteers who’s motivation is to provide for our city will continue to do so, I don’t see a mass exodus. I have no problem with the council listening to the dialog of all who this ordinance will affect, I do have a problem with traditions and an inability to compromise because you think you just don’t have to getting in the way of what is in your cities best interest.
January 8, 2010 at 8:36 am
I am curious why the Mayor has so much involvment in this process. Isn’t he a life member of the Vol Fire Dept. He did most of the speaking at the meeting on Monday and absolutley intentionally skipped Chief Wood. I believe this is a conflict of interest and he shouldn’t be involved at all. I am quite suprised that this hasn’t been brought up before.
January 8, 2010 at 10:04 am
at least no one in this discussion has an agenda…
January 8, 2010 at 11:25 am
Curious George, Thank you very much because you are absolutely correct and this should be investigated. LOL, I admit I do have an agenda, I am a resident. However, I am neither a volunteer in Manassas or a career staff member at Manassas.
January 8, 2010 at 3:26 pm
Suggestions for an investigation are preposterous and irresponsible. To be sure, council members thoughout the country typically vote on matters in which they have a general financial stake, such as their salary, the level of taxes that they pay along with everyone else, and utility bills they pay along with everyone else. Indeed, nearly anything the council votes on effects the financial matters of everyone, including the voting council members. In the current controversy, however, there is no financial stake whatsoever, as we are talking about a “volunteer” organization, so that makes the Mayor even an additional step removed.
Let’s also not forget that the mayor typically only votes in the event of a tie vote.
The fact that anyone would seemingly raise allegations of impropriety here throws their own credibility and motivation into question, especially when such allegations are made behind a veil of secrecy in allegations are made by people not using their real names.
You may disagree with the Mayor’s position on the issues, but you have no basis for making allegations of impropriety against him. It’s not right. Or perhaps I misunderstood your comments. Perhaps you were not really asking for an investigation; perhaps you did not mean to suggest he is conflicted in some inappropriate way.
January 8, 2010 at 4:36 pm
No Rich, I have to disagree, you are absolutely right that this is not a violation of the Virginia Code addressing “conflicts of interest”. It is more of a question of ethics, if the Mayor is a member of volunteer fire dept., (If someone who can confirm this please advise) the fact that he could of stepped back and let the council deal with this bothers me. From the beginning he has been well evolved, making statements, calling for the ad hoc committee, and letting a lopsided work session in the volunteers favor take place right in front of him. This even though probably not his intent, appears very bias. I am troubled by the fact that you think because he is a volunteer he is immune again is very troubling. Volunteers are not immune just because they are volunteers. Remember they are supported almost fully by tax dollars, I truly thank they are providing a good thing for our city but, I still want accountability. Remember if the perception is there of wrong doing than it should be discussed. This I believe keeps government in general on the up and up. As for the comment of people hiding in this blog, I think this is one of the best forms to express these concerns, I think they feel more comfortable to discuss in this kind of environment. Rich this is good dialog, this is a way for people to learn about local government, it may seem preposterous to you but, it is very interesting to me.
January 8, 2010 at 7:46 pm
HokieGirl,
You’re alright with me. I appreciate your views. We may disagree on this particular issue but that’s fine. Small hometown debate at its best. Disagreement without mean thnking. I like it. Regards and respect to you (and to MCR too, who I firmly believes opines in good faith, we merely disagree). Bless you all for caring.
R
January 8, 2010 at 8:12 pm
Thanks Rich,
You couldn’t have put it better, you don’t have to agree but, you do have to respect the opinions of all involved.
OK, Mr. Harrover, we have all put many points out there.
I would love to hear some feedback from you.
Thanks
January 9, 2010 at 12:55 pm
Please note that as part of City Council’s regular
meeting on Monday:
– Chief Wood is scheduled to present the Fire and Rescue
Annual Report. Time certain: 6:00PM.
– At citizen’s time – 7:30PM – individuals may address
Council for up to three minutes on any issue.
Citizen’s may speak for longer than three minutes if
they ask the City Manager for a place on the agenda
at least four working days before the meeting.
It is my understanding Mr. John Ahrens has met that
requirement.
January 10, 2010 at 12:54 am
MCR back on Thursday the 7th wrote in his note about how pursing self interests is dumb, and have to agree it is a dangerous path to be on…and the bad structure of this draft ordinance is helping. There are several places where it is disjointed and others where it makes no sense. By the way, my stake in the game is this is my City, proud to be a resident, and also concerned since I serve as an advocate in Aging & Disability. So there’s my stake… 🙂
As to my experience, MCR, yup – in my younger days ran with a Volunteer Fire Company as FF and EMT. It was in Central Pennsylvania, served a township covering around 9 square miles, responded to incidents on two State Highways and a portion of I-80, first responders to Gesinger Medical Center, Danville State Hospital, and Merck Chemical Plant. And first responders to one Borough without a VFD. Coordinated efforts with the County and another Borough with their Fire and Rescue companies (our Chief sat on the area Fire Board so all had voices at the table). Oh yeah, in terms of the Public Safety Committee, we included our Police in the area and also representatives from the various Fire Companies Fire Police.
Sound similar to Manassas? Only big difference being a rural area we had less houses, and a smaller population. Ah…the younger days. So when I look at that draft, I have looked at it in part through those eyes and experiences.
January 10, 2010 at 10:21 am
Let’s see here…
Do I care if we are being laughed at across Fairfax fire stations? No. Fairfax (City and County) has done a really good job of beating their volunteers down to the point they have no voice in their system, and their numbers are rapidly depleting. I was a volunteer in Fairfax County in the early-mid 80’s, I watched several volunteer stations fold under the County’s pressure and I watched what they did to us until I had to get out too.
Is the “Fairfax” model the kind of system we want here? Not so sure. If we the taxpayers are okay with a very large increase in our taxes over the next few years, lets go ahead and push out the volunteers and go “all paid” like Manassas Park. I really think someone on City staff needs to do some HONEST legwork with our surrounding jurisdictions and find out REAL per capita tax dollars spent on Fire and Rescue as comparison to the system our City has now.
Do I find it curious that volunteers in our fire house that are paid elsewhere are STILL opposed to the direction this is taking? No. I can only assume that those volunteers look at the system where they work and for some reason don’t think it’s the best way for the City.
I think we need to avoid going down the FUD path that seems to be implied by some commenters. I’ve talked to some volunteers and some paid staff, and while yes their is some “big picture” uncertainty with everything that’s going on, there is ZERO impact to day by day service delivery to we citizens. Go ask if you don’t believe me. Talk to some medics or firefighters in our City’s stations, when the bells go off NONE of this changes any of them from jumping on the rigs and doing their best for us.
So, where are the folks from other threads that were pushing us have Prince William County take over? Didn’t another Council member ask that exact question Andy? I looked for minutes from past meetings on the City web site but they are about a month back from being posted at least that the public can find. Is that going anywhere, asking them that is? The way I read what the volunteers have asked, they’re asking for a system here in our City that is practically a mirror of Prince William County’s system. I’d say that system does a pretty good job of providing excellent service to the County, so I really don’t see much risk to we citizens if you Council types adopt such a system here.
Oh, and can we PLEASE get away from this “Public Safety Committee” stuff in this ordinance? The Police Department isn’t a party to this at all, and I’d count police as public safety, so unless you have plans on drawing them into this you need a different name for this Andy. I think the County calls theirs a Fire and Rescue Association or some such name.
And to be honest, reading Draft 1 and Draft 2, I see some improvement in “Appeals Committee”, but to be honest I still think it’s just going to be a rubber stamp to whatever the Fire Chief wants. And don’t take that as anything against the current Chief Wood, he seems like a great guy and everyone says he’s a consensus builder and is working with everyone for the betterment of service delivery. But he won’t be here forever, and can we say the next Chief that comes along will have the same mindset and cooperative attitude? Council can say they’d factor that into their selection process for a successor, but that criteria isn’t in code, this ordinance and the system it creates IS law. Let’s make it the best we can, and if that means it goes BACK TO COMMITTEE to work it out then let’s do that. What do we really lose as citizens or service delivered if the process goes on a bit longer? Is there some rush?
January 10, 2010 at 5:08 pm
I have never advocated the demise of the volunteer system. What I have advocated for is a system where the volunteers and career staff follow the same rules operationally. The City hired a Chief and he should make those operational rules as most Chiefs do. The volunteers started this whole issue by leaving the fire house unstaffed several times. They can put forth any documentation they have that disputes this claim, but I know for a fact the fire house was unstaffed during past holidays. You can not compare Manassas to PWC. PWC is a bunch of individual companies and even PWC is starting to change and give more authority to the career chief. City Citizen, yes this should be a rush item. Right now we have fire fighters on both sides that need to be on the same page. As long as it is operating as it is now, these brave men and women are put in unnecessary danger. Times and place are much different then when you were a fire fighter City Citizen and this needs to be corrected ASAP. You and I are paying for a Chief who can not function as a Chief, I say either let him do the job, or let him go and put the volunteer chief in operational control. But remember, the City has no control over the volunteer chief. The volunteer chief is elected and on many occassions is the most popular person rather than the best person for the job. I will say it again, if I thought the volunteers had the citizens best interest at heart I would support them more, but there leadership’s remarks in the press and in meetings have made it quite clear the motives are self serving.