Big props to Peter Hegarty over at the Alameda Journal for a really precise Request for Information query, yesterday the Alameda Journal ran this story, highlights:
Alameda city officials were put on notice that a water rescue program was necessary for public safety more than two years before a despondent man drowned himself off Crown Beach while firefighters watched because they said department policy prevented a rescue attempt, public records show.
The warning came in a Feb. 4, 2009 grievance letter filed by a leader of the firefighters union who said the department’s fire boat and water rescue programs were first implemented “due to the inherent risk that comes with providing service for an island community” and that an estimated 2,000 private boats are docked in Alameda.
“While water rescue calls are not a frequent response, they do occur several times a year,” union Trustee Matt Nielsen said in the letter, which also noted that more than 12 square miles of water surround the city.
The union maintained that the city’s decision to shelve the rescue programs in 2008 to save money violated their contract because it changed working conditions. But both former interim fire Chief Dave Kapler and former interim City Manager Ann Marie Gallant rejected the claim, according to documents obtained by the Bay Area News Group under a freedom-of-information request.
…
According to public records, the city told Alameda firefighters Local 689 that it was taking the department’s inflatable boat out of service in May 2008. The fire boat was pulled from service the following November.
Gallant told the union that its grievance claim was rejected during a May 20, 2009 hearing, saying that under its contract “the city has no bargaining obligation over the decisions to take the fire boat and water rescue boat out of service.”
It was “a financial decision within fire management’s purview,” Gallant said in the May 28, 2009 memo. “During the hearing, Chief Kapler noted that the fire boat and water rescue boats are beneficial to the department but not required,” Gallant said.
I imagine that this information will be part of the larger independent report that will be submitted to the Council in September.
Don’t forget tomorrow and Sunday is the Art & Wine Faire (yes, with an extra “e”) on Park Street from 10 – 6 p.m. I’ll be making my way down and hopefully this time I’ll finally get my damned funnel cake.
Also, forgot to mention that the City Council will be meeting on Saturday morning in closed session to talk about the City Attorney position. Off-site, Saturday morning meeting can only mean one thing: candidate interviews. Looks like we are getting closer to having a permanent City Attorney soon.
We had 17 Fireman making between 200-250K last year total compensation . another 48 making between 150-200K.
Hard to figure why we didn’t have Enough for Water Safety. Wonder where all the money went.
Comment by John — July 29, 2011 @ 9:12 am
I forgot they haven’t had a raise in 6 years…Maybe we can do fundraiser for Fire Department…Most will only be recieving the equivelant of 5-7 paid for houses upon retirement with the Upper management recieving 10+ paid for houses in Alameda. I think we should buy pools for these houses considering the City can’t afford to keep theirs up.
Comment by John — July 29, 2011 @ 9:18 am
Jack I won’t be around this weekend for the Park Street Faire. You will be responsible for the Tin Cup for the Fire Department. JS will be in charge of donation cup for Vaseline and Surgical gloves so he doesn’t get burns from slidding up and down the Firemans pole and we will also purchase some new cushions for the New City Manager to make him comfortable while riding Firetruck over city Potholes.
Comment by John — July 29, 2011 @ 9:37 am
Peter H has done his paper proud on this one. His appearance on Forum in June showed that he had a solid understanding of the issues and a command of the many narratives, and his reporting has continued to be based on facts, digging into them, and dispassionately presenting them without political bent.
Comment by John Knox White — July 29, 2011 @ 11:14 am
The legacy of Anne Marie Gallant lives on.
Comment by Dave L. — July 29, 2011 @ 11:49 am
Props to the union for speaking up for whats right. Shame on the city for not listening and shutterng the water rescue program. Given that we live on an island, its a no brainer.
John, Total compensation includes overtime, which is not persable. I believe the firemen went on record stating that they didnt want overtime and the city needs to hire more firemen.You should know that those numbers reflect people working way more hours than they should, which in turn equals more pay.
Comment by jmasterson — July 29, 2011 @ 12:14 pm
Dear funnel seeker,
Your boat needing rescued? Yesterday jmasterson posted the same link on this blog so…you been scooped Give the dude credit, maybe? (although everybody had already read the piece in the Sun).
But to the point, is it just me or does the fire union run the fire department in this city? Seems like all info about the department comes from the Union. Does the department have any kind of pr spokesman at all?
It’s not only the public face that missing from the Department but the union gets the Chief fired, fire fellow firemen that they disfavor, accuse every move by management as an unfair labor practice and if they have no standing make an end run to get their way by negotiating outside management via the ballot box.
Point is, why does the Department have management positions? Save the City some money and grief, give management authority to the Union and fire the managers. Let the Union run the Dept on a yearly contract with the city…or perhaps let them disband the Union and make the Department a private company sans city assets. Let their disgruntled employees sue the fire Department instead of the City.
Comment by Jack Richard — July 29, 2011 @ 12:19 pm
Comment by Lauren Do — July 29, 2011 @ 12:26 pm
Note carefully the details in this story:”toxicology report showed Zack did not have alcohol or narcotics in his system when he died”. Those are “cop drugs”. It does not say:”had no drugs in his system” as has been reported 2nd-hand elsewhere. Antidepressants, antianxiety agents, & antipsychotics are not narcotics, might be expected in the system of someone w/a psychiatric history, & DO cause suicidal ideation & core temperature dysregulation. I repeat:walking into the bay from a sandy Alameda beach w/your feet on the bottom & your head above water is not a likely way to drown. People do it every day & live! It’s not like jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge. Or even falling out of a boat. Everyone’s so focused on the irrelevant “water-rescue” aspect of this tragedy & assigning blame that they’re missing the point. To prevent something like this from happening again, we need to know why he “drowned”. Right now, there is no known medical reason why his actions led to his death. And I doubt that the present mode of investigation, being by a firefighter alone, will reveal it.
Comment by c gottstein — July 29, 2011 @ 12:33 pm
Headline: City of Petaluma balances budget by demoting some fire captains to lieutenant = http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20110722/COMMUNITY/110729832/1320/entertainment?Title=Balanced-budget-still-a-month-away
Comment by alameda vigilante — July 29, 2011 @ 12:44 pm
They didn’t even try to rescue the victim
http://www.insidebayarea.com/alameda/ci_18200713?source=pkg
A CROWD witnesses someone in life-threatening distress.
Yet no one comes to the person’s aid.
Everyone assumes that someone else is going to take the lead and do something — then no one does anything.
Someone alerted police and firefighters, who arrived within minutes.
They jotted notes on yellow legal pads. Firefighters raised the ladder on an engine so they could climb up and observe Zack from a better vantage point through their binoculars.
What they did not do is go into the water to
try to bring him back to shore.
After 50 minutes of wait and see, Zack disappeared from view. He was soon spotted floating face down, heading toward the shore. It was, needless to say, agonizing for Zack’s 84-year-old stepmother, who was herself helpless to intervene, not to mention an utterly ghastly sight for children, their parents and others who had come out to enjoy the holiday.
Still, the emergency personnel on the beach made no move toward the man.
Finally, a young woman swam out to retrieve him when it was 50 yards from shore. Firefighters and police still stood their ground as she dragged the nearly 300 pound man. After she had gotten to shore, emergency personnel gave the woman a hand. “They maybe got their boots wet,” said Giana Rodriguez, a witness.
How can those who whose responsibility is to protect and serve watch a man die an entirely preventable death without lifting a finger?
The man was at most 150 yards out. It’s not as though he was out in the middle of the Oakland Estuary.
Alameda fire officials say they don’t have personnel trained in land water rescue. That it’s against department policies for fire fighters to go into the water.
Retired Oakland Fire Lt. Daniel Lisker believes Alameda fire officials are hiding behind guidelines to defend the indefensible.
“You don’t need training to walk out to exactly where that man was and bring him back in,” says Lisker, who worked numerous rescues during his 16 years with OFD. “If it looks bad you can always retreat. But no attempt was ever made.”
That’s just it. They didn’t even try.
I can understand that there are guidelines. But nothing is set in stone. There are extenuating circumstances when you have to say rules be damned and use the brain you were born with.
Police say they didn’t go in because Zack, who was suicidal, could be violent and dangerous. The man was neck deep in the water and had his hands in the air the entire time. Yet if police indeed feared for officers’ safety, why didn’t they dispatch mental health experts to talk to Zack and try to defuse the situation?
According to witnesses, no one even tried to contact him on a bullhorn.
Police and fire personnel just kept watching. The civilians, in turn, kept watching and waiting for emergency responders to do something. One man ventured out to Zack on his kite surf board and tried to convince him to come back in — to no avail.
Alameda contacted the Coast Guard. But its boat couldn’t get to Zack because the water was too shallow. A helicopter was delayed because it had to refuel.
The sad thing is, out of all the people on the beach that day, only one young woman had the courage and compassion to go into the water to rescue him.
Comment by John — July 29, 2011 @ 12:48 pm
There was over 50+ Years of Water Resue Experience on the Resume of the Fireman at the Scene.
Alameda fire officials are hiding behind guidelines to defend the indefensible.
“You don’t need training to walk out to exactly where that man was and bring him back in,” says Lisker, who worked numerous rescues during his 16 years with OFD. “If it looks bad you can always retreat. But no attempt was ever made.”
That’s just it. They didn’t even try.
I can understand that there are guidelines. But nothing is set in stone. There are extenuating circumstances when you have to say rules be damned and use the brain you were born with.
Firemans Oath
“My duty is to protect those that I serve from whatever danger they may face; whether it be fire, demon, or angel; no matter the danger, I will protect the people to the best of my ability. I am but a servitor of the people; my duty is to those who I serve, and to no one else. I serve The People, without fear, without remorse, without fail. My Duty is to The People. By my Fireman’s Oath, I am bound to protect those who are in danger, those in times of need, those who I would serve.”
Upon my Honor as a Firefighter, this is my Creed.
Comment by John — July 29, 2011 @ 1:02 pm
Luckily for AMG she can only be burned at the stake one time. The ‘in-crowd’ of Alameda would have been right at home in Salem. I am willing to keep an open mind till the official report is released but the more I see the more I believe it will be a whitewash.
In the words of Harry Truman “Its all AMG’s fault”. .
Somehow politcos and there friends these days point their fingers at others.
Comment by frank — July 29, 2011 @ 1:05 pm
7: “But to the point, is it just me or does the fire union run the fire department in this city? Seems like all info about the department comes from the Union. Does the department have any kind of pr spokesman at all?”
Jack, based on what I know of the IAFF 689′s staffing proposals in 2008-2009 to lower overtime, and on their protests/grievances against the end of the water rescue program, the AFD actually WOULD have been better off had the union been in charge of running it instead of David Kapler.
The mismanagement damage wrought on AFD by former chief Kapler – with the “assistance” of Ann Marie Gallant – as represented by what happened to Raymond Zack on Memorial Day as well as the “gas-gate” behavior that led to Kapler’s departure – is now being repaired under the AFD’s new interim chief.
Too bad that damage caused during the three years of Kapler’s tenure -not to mention Gallant’s – has cost all of us so much already and was so easily preventable. Had former Chief Kapler and former ICM Ann Marie Gallant respected, listened to, or worked with the professional firefighters it seems quite likely that the Memorial Day tragedy and the many resulting tragedies (loss of trust, etc.) would NOT have occurred.
Comment by Jon Spangler — July 29, 2011 @ 2:15 pm
Jon they have been running the City since last december. Zack died at the end of May.
Comment by frank — July 29, 2011 @ 2:32 pm
15
Lack of Trust becuase of Lack of Courage amoung many other Acts.
Lawsuits for CS tactics pulled by their own on fellow firefighter.
I’m sure Kapler got more than Vile puked on him .
To say this is sad and pathetic on everything that AFD represents is understatement.
Maybe they can spread Rays ashes with the new Boat.
Comment by John — July 29, 2011 @ 3:05 pm
8
Damn, you are in need of a funnel fix! That hurt my ears!
(So I was wrong about the piece being in the Spun yesterday instead of the Urinal today, what difference does a day make)
14
“AFD actually WOULD have been better off had the union been in charge of running it instead…”
After we get that change, we can work on moving the teacher’s union as private owners of AUSD. Put Mark in as chief negotiator for the city.
Comment by Jack Richard — July 29, 2011 @ 3:06 pm
Jack it’s amazing what has happened to this City…..RLOL
I’m sure School Board is strong vision for Brown 25.
Comment by John — July 29, 2011 @ 3:20 pm
You mean this, John? http://youtu.be/008BPUdQ1XA
Comment by Jack Richard — July 29, 2011 @ 3:49 pm
Jack
Yes….Your nominee for chief negotiator for the city.
Comment by John — July 30, 2011 @ 12:59 am
“Jack I won’t be around this weekend for the Park Street Faire.”
Don’t worry John, I’ll be there hanging around the funnel pit with my sign up sheets. One for the chief negotiator, one for privatizing fire and one for the mutherfuckin boat ride. Oh yes, and with the tin cup of vasaline.
Comment by Jack Richard — July 30, 2011 @ 9:28 am
15: Frank, you cannot dispute that:
a) the decision to end the existing and well-run surface water rescue program at AFD was made in 2008-2009, on David Kapler’s (and Ann Marie Gallant’s) watch, and
b) the cancellation occurred despite the objections of the union firefighters at the time and later on (as expressed in their February 2009 grievance against Kapler and the City of Alameda, which was unsuccessful even though the union was, in the end, right);
c) the union and its members were largely ignored and shut out of AFD decision making during Kapler’s tenure, which did not serve our community well and, in large part, caused the death of Raymond Zack on Memorial Day. His tragic death could have been prevented had the city and AFD administrators heeded the warnings and objections of its employees, the professional firefighters of Alameda, 2-3 years earlier.
By the time Kapler and Gallant had left the scene and a new City Council election had taken place, enough damage had been done to the AFD that the damage could not all be repaired (and all of the dysfunctional policies reversed) in time to save Raymond Zack. The ounce of prevention (recognizing and respecting the views of city employees) in 2008-2009 would have cost the City of Alameda and this community far less than the post-tragedy “pound of cure” we are now enduring.
Comment by Jon Spangler — July 30, 2011 @ 4:38 pm
Jon, whether or not the city has a water rescue program is a management decision. It is outside the scope of union negotiating rights so your b) and c) are not germane to anything but your dissatisfaction with the previous administration. It’s still unclear how the decision to end the program came about. I would hope that people retain an open mind until the investigation ends.
Comment by Jack Richard — July 30, 2011 @ 6:19 pm
As other Cities have done I would be all for outsourcing the Fire Department…I am sorry but they make more than doctors in the bay area.
Comment by Joe — July 31, 2011 @ 12:16 pm
Lauren: if you have access to the trustee letter referenced above, could you please post it in its entirety. Thanks very much.
Jack (#23): Yes, that’s what AMG said: the water rescue program is a management decision left up to the AFD brass. I’m not sure why “the city” is to blame here.
“It was “a financial decision within fire management’s purview,” Gallant said in the May 28, 2009 memo.
Comment by dlm — July 31, 2011 @ 1:18 pm
25
The City ‘is to blame’ because AFD brass IS the City, liability wise.
Comment by Jack Richard — July 31, 2011 @ 3:46 pm
post#24, so Joe are you thinking like to China or maybe somewhere closer.???
Comment by John P. — July 31, 2011 @ 6:52 pm
#26: I think that’s confusing a couple of different issues tho. In terms of legal liability, you’re right — if a fire truck hits another vehicle, then htat’s the city’s liability.
In terms of employer vs. employee, tho, it’s not the same. The city bargains with firefighters and with Fire Dept managers, who have their own MOU. The Fire Chief is a contract employee, so I’m not sure where that leaves him, but in any event, the “city” and AFD managers are not the same thing.
Comment by dlm — July 31, 2011 @ 9:13 pm
When the employer, City Manager, defends the policies of her employer, there’s no distinction.
Comment by John Knox White — July 31, 2011 @ 10:42 pm
The employer IS the City. The city bargains with itself for fire services. AFD is not a private entity and any liability associated with the fire department is the City liability.
In terms of employer vs. employee or employee vs. employee, as long as it’s even remotely associated with the job, the City is on the hook for damages. If the Fire Chief screws up on the job, the screwee is going to sue the City whether or not the CM defends the Chief”s decision.
Comment by Jack Richard — August 1, 2011 @ 8:50 am