Three councilors and a bunch of firemen

[Red Arrow]

I'm not going to argue with the size of the Tulsa police force, it should be larger, but I have a real fundamental question. Why do we have so many firefighters? I don't know specific numbers for Tulsa, but Jenks has something like 20 firefighters in two stations to take care of much less than a fire a month for a city of under 20,000 people. I think Tulsa has something like 700 firefighters. Does even Tulsa have more than a fire or two a week for that many employees?

I know they work emergency calls and accidents, but should they? When did driving $400,000 trucks to brush away debris from car wrecks and to give three minutes of medical care in emergencies waiting for an ambulance to show up become the job of the fire department? Is that cost effective or even beneficial to the community? I'm not at all denigrating what they do for people, but it seems to me that we have a large case of "mission creep" for fire departments to justify their size and scope.

I know a couple of people in TFD and even with working other kinds of calls they really don't do anything most of the time. They all seem to have second jobs or side businesses because they have a lot of time on their hands. This really seems like an area where we need a county fire department at about half the size we have today and we should refocus on only using the fire department in rescue situations on calls to non fires.

I have to go along with being able to "man" enough equipment as a first response. 

I was a volunteer fireman in the suburban Philadelphia, PA town where I grew up while in my late teens and early 20s.  We had several hundred calls per year in a town of about 30,000 covering about 6 sq mi.  We only had a few "code red" structure fires per year.  We had a significant number of small kitchen fires.   Some were out when we got there but we encouraged residents to call in case they couldn't get the fire extinguished. (We had good response time, usually getting the first truck on the road within 4 minutes even in the middle of the night with no one at the firehouse.)  We had a fair amount of brush fires in some of the undeveloped park areas.  Most likely kids smoking.  There were some car/truck fires.  Almost none were news-worthy. We did the traffic wreck scenes since we had the rescue equipment.  Yep, we swept the broken glass and parts off the street too.  We had weekly (or more) training, both book and actual drills with the equipment.  We had schools put on by Phila Fire Dept and some private venues.  It was a lot of work.

A city the size of Tulsa should probably not have to depend on volunteers.  As such, some of the fire stations will seem over manned. That is, until your house is on fire.

[Wrinkle]

You open your front door and see this:

...and, we're not to assume these are City of Tulsa Firefighters, that the people wearing shirts with this image are employees of the City of Tulsa, the Tulsa Fire Department or have any skills other than campaigning.

[USRufnex]

I guess I missed the story about Lamson threatening the Fair Board that he'd move if they didn't build him a new stadium.

I have no doubt that Lamson took full advantage of the interest and offers that were coming his way, but I don't have the impression that he initiated any of this, and Gomez's statement was the first time I heard anything about the possibility of moving to Wichita.

Gomez is mistaken.

The Drillers were never in danger of moving to Wichita.  Wichita was used as an example of what could happen if the Drillers didn't get a new stadium.  A really disingenuous argument since the Drillers were never in danger of moving outside the Tulsa metro area...

Wichita's ballpark was the only facility in the Texas League that was actually older than Driller Park, and they lost the Wranglers to Springdale, AR.

FYI, Wichita still has a minor league ballclub and they still play on that awkward old astroturf infield/grass outfield....

Last year's Wichita Wranglers are this year's Wingnuts.... lol.
http://www.wichitawingnuts.com/

[jamesrage]

Sorry, but wrong again.  You might check with the firefighters' union, as many public safety unions allow associate memberships with reduced rights.

Being a private union is no more a city organization than the firefighters' bowling league, also paid for, I guess in your mind, by taxpayer dollars.  I suppose the city owns every employee's house since it was bought with taxpayer dollars?

The charter says you can't run for municipal public office while an employee and you can't actively campaign for a candidate as a city employee.  Telling all 4500 employees they've lost all their rights to be involved in politics on their off time is crazy, and would never hold up in any court of law.

We complain in this city about money being wasted.  Have the city attorney tell any of the unions they can't participate in elections and the money thrown down the tubes by the city to lose those lawsuits would be ridiculous.

Again when they are campaigning/endorsing a candidate as city employees they are violating city charter. When they are in a city employee union they are advertising as firefighters and using their position as firefighters to campaign.

[jamesrage]

Apparently police officers and firefighters who put their lives on the line for us everyday don't have the same rights as other citizens to express their first amendment rights!

They have the same rights as citizens to express their first amendment rights, No one is trying to deny them that. If they want yard signs, make commercials or anything to support or endorse a candidate then no one is stopping them if however they wish to use their position as city employees instead of as private citizens to do those things then that is where the problem is.

[shadows]

Having attended the town hall meeting prior to the changing to a complete new charter, we called an amended charter and thus attending the first of many of the council meetings, where total attendance of citizens could be counted by the fingers of one hand and then not having to use all of them, and reading post being submitted on employees of the city laying their lives on the line is another fairy tale.  It could be assumed that the greatest danger to the citizen is when they drive on the streets they are laying their lives on the line more so that the firemen.  Or lying in bed sleeping or riding a bicycle as required on the streets.
 
One should be honest to them selves and note that firemen have much extra time as they are on duty, in a well preserved living quarters, for 24 hours and are off 48 hours to engage in extra jobs.  The idea that very very few people would be alert and performing any job that is demanded for 24 consecutive hours, is preposterous.

The indications of the ward system kept coming into the change meeting.  We are faced with that again when city employees are using the first amendment to establish a ward system when the first amendment on free speech was addressed by Justice Marshall leading up to "Can't stand up in a crowed theater and cry Fire".

Any one that thinks that 400 city employees, canvassing districts, visually implying that they were the citizens protectors, does not implement a ward system where they control with their hand picked elected public officers needs to have before election forethought.

As far as the city legal overriding the wording in the charter they should concentrate on the local duties of pending law suits instead of the city having to rely on hiring out of state firms to defend suits filed against the city.  But then too we must consider the attorneys and judges bring into the court the biases instilled in the mindset of the law professor or we would not have the millions of pages of interpretations to search through.

In the final annalist in order to secure a government of the people from special groups formed from the taxpayers employees that in time can become a ragging fire, is step on it before it can get out of control.
The firefighters, through their union have voided their contractual agreement.  IMHO

[Wilbur]

I know they work emergency calls and accidents, but should they? When did driving $400,000 trucks to brush away debris from car wrecks and to give three minutes of medical care in emergencies waiting for an ambulance to show up become the job of the fire department? Is that cost effective or even beneficial to the community? I'm not at all denigrating what they do for people, but it seems to me that we have a large case of "mission creep" for fire departments to justify their size and scope.

Wow!  Dude, you need to get out more.  If that is all you think firefighters do, you are grossly mistaken.

[swake]

Wow!  Dude, you need to get out more.  If that is all you think firefighters do, you are grossly mistaken.

I don't think that's all they do, but it is a lot of what they do. Is them doing this kind of work cost effective? It's a real question. Why drive a half million dollar ladder truck with five firemen to a choking victim call when two paramedics in a pickup truck would be just as effective, if not more so since the pickup can move and turn faster. And would be far cheaper.

[pmcalk]

The three councilors are arguing that the firefighters are using "intimidation."  Seems to me Eagleton is doing the exact same thing.  Yesterday he starts accusing the firefighters of violating federal law.  (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20090904_11_A8_Ctonio982153).  I am no expert on the Hatch Act, but here is what 5 minutes of Google turned up for me:

Under the website for the Office of Special Council, permitted activities under the Hatch Act,

Covered state and local employees may-

run for public office in nonpartisan elections
campaign for and hold office in political clubs and organizations
actively campaign for candidates for public office in partisan and nonpartisan elections
contribute money to political organizations and attend political fundraising functions

https://www.osc.gov/ha_state.htm

Making ridiculous claims like this only makes the councilors look desparate.

[sgrizzle]

I think eagleton is just saying that by identifying themselves as firefighters they may violate this part:

Covered state and local employees may not use official authority or influence to interfere with or affect the results of an election or nomination

Seems kinda flimsy.

[MichaelBates]

From Eagleton's analysis of the applicability of the Hatch Act:

According to a telephone conversation with the Office of Special Counsel on September 2, 2009, if an individual identifies himself as a covered employee while campaigning, they are most likely violating the act. Identification could occur through conversation, distributed literature, or apparel indicating, for example, that the wearer is a "Tulsa Firefighter."

If, however, according to the OSC, the apparel has only a union label on it and it does not specifically identify the individual as a covered employee (i.e. only indicates "IAFF" and/or union symbol), the employee may wear the apparel while campaigning.

What are the penalties for violating the Hatch Act? "If the Merit Systems Protection Board finds that the violation warrants dismissal from employment, the employing agency must either remove the employee or forfeit a portion of the federal assistance equal to two years salary of the employee." Office of Special Counsel website, http://www.osc.gov/ha_state.htm

[RecycleMichael]

I don't know which side is correct on this argument. I fear that employees campaigning for certain elections could be used against them, but also think they should have some rights to express their wishes. I surmise it will probably be legal. Do a search for firefighters campaigning and you will see examples all over the country where fire unions are actively supporting candidates for all offices.

But where was the outrage from these republican councilors when these same Tulsa Firefighters were campaigning last election for republican Mayor Bill LaFortune? Was it not an issue then because he was a republican or was it because it wasn't against them?

[MichaelBates]

I don't know which side is correct on this argument. I fear that employees campaigning for certain elections could be used against them, but also think they should have some rights to express their wishes. I surmise it will probably be legal. Do a search for firefighters campaigning and you will see examples all over the country where fire unions are actively supporting candidates for all offices.

But where was the outrage from these republican councilors when these same Tulsa Firefighters were campaigning last election for republican Mayor Bill LaFortune? Was it not an issue then because he was a republican or was it because it wasn't against them?

The outrage is because these councilors were targeted by the Firefighters for raising concerns about the size and rate of growth of the Fire Department budget as a share of city revenues over time, added to Taylor's desire to get back at Martinson and Westcott for opposing her on several issues and asking her questions she didn't want to answer, and that desire for electoral revenge seems to be connected to her at-will employee Dierdre Dexter's conveniently timed reversal of previous City Attorney opinions on  city employees campaigning in city elections.

[RecycleMichael]

The firefighters have targeted certain races on their own. It is a cheap shot from you to imply that this is some payback from the Mayor against these councilors.

[MichaelBates]

The firefighters have targeted certain races on their own. It is a cheap shot from you to imply that this is some payback from the Mayor against these councilors.

Well, her hubby gave money to Chris Trail.