Local 92 files restraining order – Mayor responds…
This in via e-mail:
Mayor Finkbeiner Responds to Restraining Order
Today, Mayor Finkbeiner released the following statement in response to the temporary restraining order filed by Toledo Firefighters Local 92 against the City of Toledo:
“In a major effort to address very serious and immediate fiscal challenges, the City of Toledo has taken steps to save money, and yet protect the citizens of Toledo. The Fire Chief, as part of this effort, recommended removing one firefighting company out of the existing 32. The level of public protection would have been virtually unaffected, while savings of approximately $4,000 per day would be realized. The union filed a lawsuit against the City, claiming that the City’s action would violate the union contract. The City does not believe the contract was violated by these sensible cost-saving measures. The contract reads:
‘The minimum daily line strength shall be one hundred and three (103) members … The above does not preclude consideration by the Department of Fire & Rescue Operations Administration for increases or reductions in the number of companies, or to changes in the types of companies utilized. Therefore, the total number required may vary from time to time according to the number of types of companies in service.’ –Section 2125.58 Toledo Municipal Code
A full version of the contract is also available for viewing on the City of Toledo website, as it is in the Municipal Code.
The economic downturn requires budget-cutting measures. If such measures are fought by each union, the City is in economic peril.”
Jason Webber
City of Toledo
Public Information Officer
The Judge – a political postion – needs the support of the union for re-election so of course this is what you would expect. Seems clear to me that the city could do this. Even if not, it would seem a resonable and necessary thing to do. We are only talking 4 people per day. I found it laughable that the union argued mostly that this would imperil the safety of Toledoans. Give me a break, 4 people less!!!
February 13th, 2009 at 10:38 pmEvidently Judge Jennings did not feel the Mayor was right, she is the Judge who granted the restraining order.
February 13th, 2009 at 10:41 pmGee Dave, rather let the vacant houses burn to the ground?
What’s four guys and a pumper, eh?
There are certain things you just don’t do in a dying city, and removing the one source to stave off an entire neighborhood from going up like kindling is the crew and equipment of Fire Department. And they need all the help they can get this year.
Yep Carty, sure looks like that “nickle and diming” that $10,000 threshold is paying dividends.
Besides, with Carty’s mentality, all you’d need is eight structure fires in a day to make that $4,000 back, right?
How about thinning out that “top-heavy” administration staff on 22. They don’t have a clue anyway….
or better yet, have the administration, whose alleged passion for the city seems to “come first”, forfiet their salaries for the fiscal year for the community’s basic needs and just accept one dollar, and that goes for the whole floor on 22.
Let’s see how passionate Carty is about saving Toledo now lol
February 14th, 2009 at 5:17 amBrian:
Four less firemen are not going to hurt the city so much that the place is going to burn down. The last thing Toledo needs right now is someone going overboard with their hyperbole.
Fire unions are notorious for writing in their own version of top-heaviness and the responsibilities of the four would easily be absorbed by the department itself.
Since I don’t live anywhere close to Toledo I wouldn’t know, but I wouldn’t be surprised if you are a member of the fire department and you’re spreading your own little version of propoganda.
February 14th, 2009 at 7:19 amGary?
I live in Florida and I can assure you I am not a firefighter.
But hyperbole? Must be that fire-proof house you live in.
I’ve seen many of these wood structures around town, as well as video footage of engulfed structure fires catching the neighbor’s homes ablaze as well.
One pumper does make the difference.
And with as many vacant homes, many stripped out of their valuable resources to habitate because there’s not a cop around for miles to protect and serve the neighborhood, it will be a matter of time before quite a few more of these vacant structures are rubble.
Then what, Gary? complain of the lack of fire protection? of course.
But then again, putting your life on the line for others does have a monetary value, right?
Again, if the administration was hell bent on balancing the budget, it would behoove them as a collective to take one for the “team” during this financial cluster-eff and donate their own salaries to the city. Why sacrifice public safety when the idiots screwing the town up get the riches and the spoils?
February 14th, 2009 at 7:56 amBrian, you think that Chief Wolever would put our City in danger? That’s basically what you are suggesting, the unions are not always right, the administration is not always right, but in this scenario, it’s not going to create a crisis.
February 14th, 2009 at 8:12 amI think the key word here is ‘temporary’ when it comes to the restraining order. The hearing on the matter will be the 25th and then there will be a ruling as to the merits. All this does right now is prevent the city from making the changes for the next 11 days.
February 14th, 2009 at 8:38 amWarren, Ohio has minimum staff requirements as well, they’ve closed two fire stations.
The key issue is meeting the minimum number of firemen needed per piece of equipment, that is still being done. That’s part of the reason for the minimum manning numbers.
Maggie while it may be temporary, if the City numbers are correct, it is $10,000 per day which means $120,000 from now until February 25th.
Columbus recently went through a similar situation, the firefighters agreed to not take raises promised for 2009 leaving them temporarily safe from lay offs. link to the amounts Columbus is cutting. City after City in Ohio is facing doing exactly what Toledo is doing and many of them are ending up having to cut police and fire.
We can probably all point out things in this budget that could be cut instead, the bottom line is this is what is being suggested to be cut here, and many other places.
February 14th, 2009 at 9:01 amI would rather see them do away with Reinbolt’s position along with three staff members rather than lose a single safety force member.
February 14th, 2009 at 9:40 amI’d rather not see the police department taking a larger hit than they should because the fire department is unwilling to make any compromises. The police department does not have the luxury of a minimum manning requirement and from a bottom line safety factor, that should be an issue. Removing one piece of equipment is not a huge crisis.
I’d also rather see a 15% wage cut across the board for all administrative employees, insurance costs not covered for part time employees, meaning if they wanted coverage, they could pay the equivalent cost to the city for that coverage, shut all City offices down on Friday, most of them are gone by Friday afternoon anyway, leaving only emergency services running. Drop the whole pretense related to the garbage fee/tax and use the new automated system to introduce pay as you throw based on the can size rather than the whole bag thing.
If I was in office? Those would be just a few of the changes I’d advocate for.
February 14th, 2009 at 9:49 amSo Lisa, when are you running for office?
February 14th, 2009 at 10:38 amMaybe someday Rockets.
February 14th, 2009 at 10:43 amYes, HYPERBOLE…a very apt description of Brian’s ranting….spot on.
February 14th, 2009 at 12:58 pmLets see the city cut the fat first. I’m sure if you take a good look there is quite a bit of fat to cut prior to the muscle police and fire have to offer. There is quite a visual that can be drawn with the threat of losing police or fire. Reduce city council, and city admin. salaries, control hourly and there is a start. Stupid things like the street sweeper I saw cleaning the parking lot at the “DOCKS” on a Thursday evening at 7:00pm.
February 14th, 2009 at 2:48 pmThe problem is that TFD is already the lowest manned department in Ohio and cutting four now leads to a slippery slope which could be another four next year when the budget is still a mess because of ridiculous spending, and then another four the next, etc.. If we still have a youth commission, 22 extra employees for the mayor and a pool open, police and fire shouldn’t even be on the table. The city only has four ladder trucks protecting the entire city and we really want to cut another one? Has anyone looked at a map to see just how much area those four ladders cover? The city paid for half of a study a few years back to see if police and fire were at appropriate levels. When it came back showing how immensely both departments were understaffed and how much needed to be added, the city didn’t pay for the rest of it, claiming budget issues when they didn’t truly didn’t want it becoming public record. Some of these rigs are already running 15-20 times a day. Who is going to take the runs of the rigs that go out of service?
February 14th, 2009 at 6:07 pmThere have been incremental cuts in the TFD over the past years, in my understanding. This isn’t the first.
Let me preface my statement by saying that I absolutely do not condone the Mayor’s continued thinking that he needs to increase taxes on a remarkably rapidly shrinking, (hell people are fleeing Toledo like their ass is on fire, let’s just honest about that), tax base while DE-creasing the services they receive and in many cases double billing for them.
I detest the Mayor’s inability to comprehend simple logic that a 5 year old child could easily understand. You HAVE to cut the administrative costs. That’s the ONLY place we can afford the cuts. The people can’t pay anymore, even though he continuously is squeezing for it, and we have a serious enough crime and fire problem that cutting services is an absolute violation of the public trust.
That said, the above contract language certainly allows for the cuts. Wrong as they are, they appear to be legal.
February 14th, 2009 at 6:30 pmkc, give it up.
you’re talking to people that aren’t susceptible to understanding what it is, not what they think it should be.
with the public safety, you can never have enough protection when you become the victim. and until you become a victim, you can not understand what it’s like to be that helpless.
But that’s ok, because Dave is a compassionate soul. He understands your plight.
and as kate has pointed out, the numbers may align themselves when the population in 2010 reflect the true depth of the numbers of police/fire per population anyway.
it’s all about perspective I guess, Dave.
February 14th, 2009 at 9:25 pmyes it is Brian.
February 14th, 2009 at 10:18 pmI would recommend a tourist fee for the zoo and rec center pool passes. Anyone not living in Lucas County would pay an additional $25 to $35 per year for their pass or $2 to $3 extra per admission.
The city can use this extra revenue to help pay for police and fire overages.
I would also recommend an administrative freeze on salaries for the next 2 years to show that everyone is willing to pony up during tough economic times.
It may not seem like a lot, but every little bit would help right now.
We need to realize that it may only seem like 4 firefighters or police officers not working right now, but 4 turns into 4 more and 4 more. When is only 4 more to many?
There comes a time when we need to start thinking out of the box instead of only cuts.
I would say when it means losing the people who keep you safe it’s time to start looking for other way’s to find change.
LisaRenee wrote:
February 15th, 2009 at 3:08 am#6 Lisa, Chief Wolever may be a great guy, but he is also an administrator. He was told (and given a short time to do so) to cut a certain amount of money from the budget. Do we all forget what the mayor did to Chief Navarre when he stepped to far away from King Carty’s mindset? He fired him! The Chief is a smart guy. He probably only said 99 for manpower because he knew the union (that he used to be a part of) would arbitrate and win. Remember, this is the same chief that just two months ago advocated for hiring another class to save money. He doesn’t truly want manpower to go down to 99.
February 15th, 2009 at 9:45 amDon’t kid yourselves, the only ones wanting the firefighter staffing reduced are Carty and Reinbolt. Wolever is doing what he’s told. Reinbolt has the gall to say that the only place left to cut is police layoffs? Really? What about $200k for the Board of Community Relations? What about the $200k for the Youth Commission? What about double-dipping Reinbolt hiimself, who pulls in an $80,000. a year pension at the same time he is paid $100,000. plus benefits as the Chief of Staff? The 103 is the minimum level per day, period. Read the contract with that understanding and you will see that the second part applies to additional rigs (and staffing) in and out of service as needed, but never to drop below that 103. That has been the understanding of its meaning for 20 years. Now Carty wants it to mean something else. People who say four people per day and one ladder truck won’t make a difference in a city of 317,000 people have no idea what firefighting and rescue is about.
February 16th, 2009 at 1:35 pmHey Lawdog
You missed Dave Shultz and Gary Lewis up there. They think I’m hyperboling.
Not one person advocating for the reduction has ever stood in front of their home while it burns to the ground while they wait for the proper equipment to make it’s way across town.
Shoot, even with the way it’s set up now, you’ll see a pumper making it’s rounds under the guise of “fire inspection” just to cover an area where a pumper is out of service along with “protecting” it’s own area.
But no, it’s all about how much money these firefighters make and the unions that are top heavy and how these firefighters aren’t willing to “bend” for the fiscal irresponsibility of the local government.
Nope, the union is top heavy because they were allowed to be, and to blame the firefighter and make their job more difficult is insulting.
But again, it’s all in perspective.
And Lisa? #6 Answer: He is going to do what the administration tells him to do, say what they tell him to say and respond how they want him to respond.
It’s a political appointment and if the Chief wants to keep his position, he’s going to kowtow.
Ask Chief Navarre about that.
Remember, there is no gang activity in Toledo.
February 16th, 2009 at 4:44 pmRemember Jack Smith? Some do stand up if they think the Mayor is wrong, and if lives were truly in danger? Wolever is not the type to go along to get along.
Some of this fear factor Carty is in control stuff goes too far when it comes to accusations that anyone, including the Mayor would put people’s lives in danger.
If you really want to look at this from a real human factor, having firemen working over time on a continual basis could just as easily be a larger threat to their well being as well as their judgment than eliminating one piece of equipment. The problem is the lack of a fire class, how to fund it seems to be the million dollar question.
February 16th, 2009 at 4:52 pmlawdawg said:
People who say four people per day and one ladder truck won’t make a difference in a city of 317,000 people have no idea what firefighting and rescue is about.
Amen. Simply Amen.
Reduction in fire staffing + (# vacant/abandoned structures in Toledo) = Disaster
Disaster + ‘mystery’ ignition (aka arson) = Absolute disaster
Some people (politicians) just don’t get it since the view from the tower is so much different than what’s on the ground.
God help Toledo.
February 16th, 2009 at 6:34 pmIf cutting four firefighters from a truck is a disaster then what is cutting out the funding to demolish abandoned homes? That creates more homes to face arson…
February 16th, 2009 at 6:39 pmIf cutting four firefighters ends up creating an even larger police shortage, because the police department does not have a minimum manning requirement, where does that lead us?
No one has stated why the police department should take another hit…
February 16th, 2009 at 6:41 pmThe police shouldn’t take a hit either, but pitting the fire against the police is just unfair. I think that police are making enough concessions just by going into an unsafe work environment everyday because our local gov’t puts wasted spending above the safety of its citizens and those put in charge of protecting it. It is a shame that the police don’t have a minimum manning because the city is showing right now by allowing cuts to their dept. that they don’t care about TPD safety. They are only saying that they will cut police if fire doesn’t bend so they can get what they want. Police and fire are always the bait during hard times and/or contract times. Usually they are used as a scare tactic. Now, TFD is being seen as the bad guys because they won’t give in and work in unsafe conditions. The city has been going after that minimum manning for years and they think that if people start looking at TFD as the bad guys, they will give in. It was the number deemed safe back in 1988 with 10,000 less runs a year, why would it be any different now? Shame on Toledo city gov’t for their backhanded tactics.
February 16th, 2009 at 7:10 pmI have a hard time buying four firefighters will be an issue. I remember very well when the agreement to propose the city get into the ambulance business was signed by Fire Chief Mike Bell and James Martin, president of Toledo Firefighters union.
They were more than willing to adjust the department’s current minimum manning level down to 83 firefighters being assigned to “fire suppression” which meant they were comfortable with a reduction in actual fire fighting personnel to do the ambulance runs.
One could ask if the City had not gone into the ambulance business, had the Fire Chief and the Union not agreed, where we would be as far as the overtime issue and this current discussion.
I don’t disagree that pitting the fire up against police is horrible, but that’s the position we are in unless someone manages to find another area to make cuts in.
February 16th, 2009 at 7:28 pmIf these aparatus are taking 15-20 runs a day, who is going to take them? Granted, the ladder trucks probably don’t take as many runs, but there are only four protecting the entire city. The ladder they want to take out is near UT where there are a lot of high buildings. They need a ladder truck covering that end of town. And tell me, do you honestly believe that this won’t cause a slippery slope, where four firefighters each year won’t jeopardize safety? Once they cut, the city has permission to do the same thing they are currently doing to the police department and I think it is safe to say that TPD is NOT at safe levels, but the city will continue to cut.
February 16th, 2009 at 7:39 pmLisa -
For the record, I am not advocating a cut in any public safety services. Ever.
As for demolition costs? If the city would get more aggressive with the property owners that refuse to accept responsibility for their properties, and take title to those properties in the interest of public health and welfare, the fire department and police department could use those properties for training exercises. Hence – demolition would be accomplished without having to contract with an outside company. This is an accepted (and welcomed) practice in the furtherance of preparedness of public safety forces.
The departments get the benefit of ‘hands on’ training and the property in question gets leveled.
There is no way that anyone can convince me that the only way to trim the budget is by compromising the safety of the residents by reducing manpower. If you stroll the 22nd floor you will see more dead wood up there than in a national forest. Clean out the dead wood and there might be a light in the forest.
And, FOR the record, the key to balancing the budget is by trimming NON-essential services. All those assistants to the assistants to the commissioner of ####### that assists the commissioner of ########, etc. Toledo municipal government is, and has been for many years, extremely top heavy. It’s time to balance out the physical form instead of looking like a very insulting image of Dolly Parton. You know – big boobs on top and nobody notices anything else.
February 16th, 2009 at 7:44 pm#28, the ambulances still make runs to fires just like the rescues they replaced, so they weren’t going down to 83.
February 16th, 2009 at 7:47 pmThat apparently wasn’t a concern as far as our safety or their safety when we took on the ambulance runs. Which is my point, it’s selective as to when the minimum manning matters and when it doesn’t.
If it was critical then why was it okay to agree to drop it to take on the additional runs? Why wasn’t the impact on overtime taken into consideration then?
I don’t dispute the fact that to meet the minimum manning numbers we have to have a fire class, but I also wonder if anyone has looked at the number of firefighters that were pulled off of assignment for actual fire runs to do the ambulance runs versus how much the city is taking in from those runs, compared to the overtime costs. If we are spending more in overtime than we are generating from the ambulance runs? Perhaps that should be eliminated and it would free up more firefighters. If that would reduce over time costs even after the ambulance income, that could be one way to do this without impacting public safety.
February 16th, 2009 at 7:47 pmI beg to differ kc. I looked it up to make sure I was correct in stating the 83 – Link:
February 16th, 2009 at 7:52 pmCarol, we don’t disagree on that. However, if the choice is make more cuts to the police department or to make it more equitable to both police and fire, I think it should be both if it has to be that way.
The overtime issue with the fire department is a much larger one than with the police department. The only way to address that is to add more firemen or to cut equipment.
February 16th, 2009 at 7:55 pmThe ambulances were already taking those runs as rescues. It’s not like they are new apparatus taking runs that they never took before. They were at every one of the same runs before, but the only change was that people didn’t have to wait for an ambulance to show up. Seems like our safety was still on their minds.
February 16th, 2009 at 8:13 pmOkay, then why was it necessary to change the minimum manning down to 83 for fire if they were already doing this?
I have a very different memory of when all of this happened starting in 2006 then up to the vote in 2007.
February 16th, 2009 at 8:16 pmI checked and the ambulances still make fire runs and are equipped as such. They act just like the rescues they replaced. I don’t know why they changed the language of the manning, maybe it was to avoid the city taking fire apparatus out of service and replacing them with ambulances that make more money. I am guessing it was to protect the manning on the current equipment, just a guess though.
February 16th, 2009 at 9:06 pmI’m not sure that would be the reason why the union would agree to reduce the minimum manning for fire calls, either way, it demonstrates that the number 103 is not related to fire, if it went the way it was supposed to, the number went from 83 to 86 in 20008, with no risk to safety at that time. What’s being proposed would be taking it back down one below 83, to 82 if that is still the present number of firefighters scheduled for direct fire services.
Bottom line, the fire overtime is an issue, how that can be resolved is only two ways, hire more or reduce equipment. Part of the deficit is directly related to overtime costs being higher than predicted. Last numbers I could find were this:
The city budgeted $1.53 million for the fire department’s overtime and had spent almost $2.5 million by the end of September.
February 16th, 2009 at 9:17 pmLisaRenee wrote:
I agree with the equity – but I say neither should face cuts. Until the flotsam in the top heavy administration is addressed WHY would they look at cutting essential safety services.
And I am concerned about fire and crime victims but I am VERY, VERY, VERY concerned about the safety of our fire and policemen and women. To be blunt, the cutting of man power may very well be a risk to the lives of these public servants.
And I don’t know who raised Carty Finkbeiner, but those are fighting words where I come from. You take care of your firemen and your policemen – they are laying it all, everything they have on the line to do their jobs.
You give them everything you can. And you do NOT put them in jeopardy for anything.
February 16th, 2009 at 9:34 pmkateb wrote:
(standing on chair, ‘hooting’ and applauding loudly)
February 17th, 2009 at 4:25 am#23: Lisa, Chief Smith did stand up to Carty and it was about the gang issue and publically stated so, and after several heated arguements where Jack actually stood up to Carty, Carty promptly replaced Jack with Mike Navarre.
So yes, after that event, I’m assuming the Fire Chief will rather worry about his job.
And for clarification, were the 83 proposed reduced number of firefighters minus 40 firefighters to “run” the ambulances? Did the ambulance crews count toward the total? Cuz that’s what you get when you subtract proposed from mandatory.
February 17th, 2009 at 5:19 amCheck out this link to Hooda-Thunkit’s Therapy blog – it couldn’t have been said better.
http://www.hooda-thunkit.blogspot.com/
February 17th, 2009 at 4:25 pm