OVERHAUL THE SAINT JAMES, NEW YORK FIRE DISTRICT AND DEPARTMENT

Board of Commissioners
Saint James Fire District

Saint James, New York

Subject:  Customer/9-1-1 caller, taxpayer-friendly service

Commissioners Young, Theobalt, Kearny do not accept public disagreement with their dictates.  Specifically, when I attempted to read in to the minutes a Smithtown News editorial critical of the district I was told I could only ask questions, not declare or read comments though I had witnessed previous speakers reading comments.

Assuming that the three commissioners who still hold these views continue to avoid critical public input, I offer suggestions  that will help the two who are interested in change to convince the other three that good district management comes before any other consideration. “We always did it that way” is horrible and destructive management. The following suggestions, if implemented will move the district and department forward to excellent service quality and management. It may be necessary to elect a third commissioner who places public service over good-old-boy service.  First, understand this:

District assertion that it does not meddle in department business is false!

1) There should be a banner over any door to a gathering area that says:  “The Saint James Fire District exists to provide only necessary funding for fire department operations and secure insurance, equipment, goods and services and contracts necessary to support the department in its mission to provide life and property safety.” The department has the responsibility for social functions, service delivery and activities not immediately related to fire and life safety concerns.

2) Any expenditure of public funds  will be fully documented so NEED (not “nice-to-have”) is easy to understand, alternatives are considered including reasons for non-adoption and alternative vendors were considered. All justification includes notes on “what will happen if this procurement is denied”?

3) The District shall require the chiefs to maintain statistics on ambulance response times and methods to assure response times match or exceed “industry” standards (Note: I have witnessed cases of 2 X “3” with no EMT available.) The  statistics shall be presented to the commission monthly and will be published in the meeting minutes for public benefit. There are four chiefs cars assigned and none of them are required to respond as aid providers. Chiefs shall be required to justify failures to meet standards for these response times and the commissioners, working with the chiefs then propose systems and methods to bring response times to or better than standards. “We need more paid EMT’s” is only one answer to debate and should be the last resort.

4) The district shall encourage the chiefs to require the use of the “first alert” (or current system) at least for ambulance response.  Specifically, members who respond without using the app prior to arriving at the station do not receive response credit. Requirements for use shall be specified in chiefs’ orders and be enforced.

5) All ambulance and heavy apparatus drivers shall receive refresher training on response protocols. On “A” calls ambulances currently are running stop signs and stoplights and using lights and sirens in contrast to chiefs’ “orders”. This violation of chiefs’ orders poses a liability to the district and is a punishable action.

6) District shall not ratify chiefs who have not demonstrated competence in personnel management.  A chief’s order to “take that 1 ¾ inch hose in the back door is not arguable. However the current chiefs have no concept of personnel management, including performance expectations, performance evaluations; evaluating  strengths and weaknesses of individual volunteers and “best fit” assignments for volunteers. All chiefs should be required to complete a “personnel management” course within 6 months of their appointment. The commission can delay ratification of an elected chief for six months until/unless the chief has taken instruction on personnel management and has been interviewed by the commission to demonstrate understanding.

7) Chiefs should be encouraged to develop subordinates (not just their favorite sons and daughters) via training and participation opportunities.  For example, “33” might have to be out of town (without the chief’s car) for a day. A good practice would be for the chief to, over-the-air for the benefit of volunteers, announce a captain who will act in his place. This assures coverage, develops subordinates and notifies the volunteers who is in charge.

8) Discontinue LOSAP.  There is much fraud around LOSAP.  I personally reported an instance of fraud and I witnessed other fraud while on duty in my paid position at the Main Station.  LOSAP does not foster response; it fosters bloated rosters with poor participation. This is one of those problems “everyone talks about but no one does anything about.” An ex-commissioner on Facebook once suggested fraud was a problem only at Station One.  That is patently false. The report I made to the response statistician was a station 2 violation. I have witnessed numerous violations at both stations. There is no enforcement of the necessity to truly be available to respond. Here are several conditions and benefits of ceasing participation in LOSAP:  

* All existing LOSAP payouts continue but for both new and existing personnel, it is frozen as of a certain date.

* Instead, a pay-per-call system is instituted.  The treasurer will likely say “Oh, we can’t do that.”  Actually you can. There are many IT programs that can keep track of participation and even issue a check to members who have responded to calls during a given month.  The IRS considers small amounts to be “reimbursement” and not “compensation” so there are no tax consequences. The pay-per-call has several benefits and no negative consequences:

A) Participation percentages are no longer necessary except for department management interests. (in case the department actually cares).  Volunteers will find no value in responding only to calls sufficient to keep him/her enrolled in LOSAP. If a volunteer does not respond, s/he receives no “paycheck.”

B) Costs will be much less than the current amount for participation in LOSAP (though I am not able to learn from the budget exactly how much is paid for LOSAP annually)

C) Though LOSAP is not the only cost supporting members, the department can recruit more members since they are essentially “pay-as-we-go.”  There are other fixed costs, such as insurance but these are not as costly as LOSAP. In other words the costs of a larger volunteer roster are mostly incremental, increasing only as response increases. Positive motivation to respond.

9) Publish public meeting agenda in advance.  Citizens do not want to attend every meeting but may wish to attend where there is an item of particular interest. Then, publish meeting minutes in detail, not summary. A citizen ought to be able to read a discussion about a particular agenda item and truly understand the item.

10) Ask the department to review its chiefs’ operations and structure with a report to the commission.  Because a larger department requires 4 chiefs does not mean Saint James does. The frequency of calls suggests two cars and two chiefs should suffice (based on my observation, not statistics) especially if the department grooms subordinates (not just the favorite sons and daughters) to fill in  when necessary. We have four chiefs and chiefs’ cars and yet there are calls when not one of them respond. (Hopefully all those chiefs’ cars are parked somewhere in the district and not out-of-district when a call is dispatched).

11) I am not familiar with what is allowed of the chiefs with respect to personal use of their cars but carrying family members or girl friends creates a liability and should stop.  If you don’t believe that, check again. Consider this scenario: the District Manager accidentally misses a recall notice or a routine safety check. The chief gets in an accident because of that failure.  The chief’s child (children) are hurt. You are perfectly naive if you think the chief won’t sue. Chiefs’ cars should be used for responding to calls and, per scheduling within the chiefs group, a chief that is not available for response should not be operating his vehicle for personal errands.  This is prudent management of public funds, risk and equipment.

12) In order to reduce liability and to develop subordinates, consider selecting and training specialists for some “23’s.”  For instance, a no-symptom CO call could be handled by one of a number of volunteers trained to respond to such a call. If properly trained, equipment necessary to perform such an investigation should be minimal. This saves an engine and a chief’s car response.  Similarly, outdoor burning (unless the dispatcher indicates there is a threat) can be investigated by a no-code responder with a radio in his/her POV. I was a volunteer in a fire department as an “outdoor burning warden.” I alone was dispatched to questionable outdoor burning activities. The response was no-code so I could drive my POV or a district vehicle (Had limited commission in law enforcement).  I called for an engine if necessary otherwise handled the incident on my own.  This saved a chief or engine response and not once in my five years did an incident get out of hand because an engine was not dispatched initially. Chief remains on the radio for consult or assistance.

13) Reduce funding for chiefs’ conferences.  When another member and I attended a terrorist training in Hauppauge at department expense, we then as a pair discussed the training in a department meeting.  One or two chiefs (without family - if four chiefs and/or family attend the department pays for all additional over two chiefs and

family) can attend conferences and return with information for the other chiefs, officers, and full department if useful to the membership.

14) Stop paying for all social activities and that includes the annual recognition dinner.  The department should pay for these functions. Recognition can be done at department meetings.  If the district chooses to spend minimally in catering…( but no more $30,000 dinners) so be it. The department, not the district, pays  all expenses for other social functions and parades. The volunteers must pound the bricks for ample donations, not simply mail out solicitations. I suspect that through time the district has obligated itself to more of these functions because fund-raising has not been sufficient.  Require more active fundraising via department activities and stop subsidizing social events. Department wants more discretionary money?  Pound the bricks.

15) Speak at a department meeting about the HoH contract.  The members enjoy bashing HoH but it takes two to sign a contract.  If the district is satisfied with the contract it must convey to the members the only outlet they have for criticism is the commissioners, not HoH.  If the district is not satisfied with the contract..don’t sign it. The HoH “haters” ignore the responsibility of the commissioners for these contracts and claim we can get more money because HoH has nowhere else to go.  Fine, test that theory. Don’t think it will work out so well. The hatred the volunteers demonstrated for HoH this past year is ignorant. A few years ago I ran some quick numbers that demonstrated that while HoH does not pay the same amount in taxes for fire protection as residents in the district to, HoH actually paid substantially more per call.

16)  Investigate inter-district consolidation.  Do Smithtown, Saint James, Nesconset all heed $1.5 million ladders? Nope.  Research how many times 4-3-7 has been raised (not just responded). Revised mutual aid agreements can swap, apparatus or tasks.  

Perhaps Nesconset is automatically to respond the ladder on a threatening situation (not smoke detector) and in return we automatically provide some negotiated service for

Nesconset.  Long Island has more apparatus per capita than any other similar-sized area in the country.  Expensive, not necessary and poor management. The District  and department have no charter to “keep up with the Joneses”; we exist only to save lives and property. Some have said that the ISO rating would be downrated if we lose a ladder (and we should lose an engine) raising residence and business insurance rates.  I don’t believe that the increase in insurance would be greater than the savings achieved by not buying and maintaining a ladder or third engine. This should be honestly researched.

17) Post commissioner meeting minutes to the website promptly after approval and include detail so that the citizen need not ask “21 questions” at a commission meeting to learn how the district is spending his tax dollars. (Similar to suggestion #9)

18) I have been told different stories about why EMT’s are not required to respond so I am not sure how to address this but certainly any training paid for by the department should require EMT response for some period of time (perhaps 2 years) and a duty schedule might help the EMT’s keep track of their obligations and not over-burden any

one of them. If the district is not paying for EMT education then consider a paid EMT overnight (stay away from an employment situation that requires collective bargaining.)

19) Further attempts to build a new station must include constant public and firefighter input and the premise must be that the Saint James Fire Department cannot afford nor does it need a Taj Mahal. Any review committees must include participants who are not given to “group think,” or who are blind supporters of the department so that the district’s wishes are not the only consideration.  I volunteer to participate on a citizens’ review committee.  A competent, highly motivated department can deliver services from a well-specified concrete tilt-up facility. Maintain Station 1 as a social facility so needless space and equipment need not be a part of a new substation.

20) This is necessary precedent to adoption of any efficiency ideas:  The commissioners should adopt a by-law that does not allow commissioners to also be firefighters or ambulance operators.  That they are is a breach of ethics at least in appearance and likely in practice; current practice assures that district support of the department will NOT be at “arm’s length.”  The commission and the department MUST not be “buddies.” The roles are different; the district is the gatekeeper of funds and will not act prudently so long as they see their mission as giving the department whatever it wants.

The district is a monopolistic provider of services and it uses taxes (forced donations) to provide these services.  It has an obligation to the department to provide minimal, effective funding and an obligation to the taxpayer/service recipient to provide services at least possible cost.  Bottom line: the fire department is a resource the district funds to provide services to the community; it is not an institution that should never stand review.  The district’s obligation is to the taxpayers and service requesters, not the department.  The district must tax as sparingly as possible. Again, the district will throw up its hands and say “we have no input on fire department operations.”  That is patently false.   Do not defend that our tax rates as the highest in District 4 because of our low commercial base UNTIL all prudent cost-saving measures have been adopted. Then you can make a case.

Sincerely,

John M. Tyson  

bonner83856@gmail.com