Duty to ActEMSPoliticsTrainingYou Can't Make This Stuff Up
Alameda Does An About-Face
That didn’t take long. Yesterday’s drowning death in Alameda, California prompted an about face today as the policy prohibiting firefighters from effecting a land based water rescue was reversed.
My question is – will those who made the “tough choices” back in 2009 to cut the budget – who no doubt reveled in the hold-the-line against taxes rhetoric – have the courage to step forward now, or will they shift their feet and try to find someone else to blame?
As I understand it, the city ordered the department to cut spending in 2008/2009 but did not mandate that land based water rescue had to withdrawn.
The FD head at the time (Chief Kapler) made the “tough choice” to defer to the coast guard for water rescues, saving on a rescue craft and various other costs.
The city then voted to support this.
I think the about-turn represents a recognition by both the FD and the city that they *both* made an error of judgement.
Here in Alameda 99% of the community is out with torches and pitchforks to crucify the firefighters and the police who were at the scene but “stood by eating donuts” according to some armchair critics. AFD personnel are also being nailed for their “outlandish” pay and pension benefits,again out of ignorance, IMHO.
Not much criticism at all is being directed to the 2009 City Council for their decision, or to disgraced former fire chief David Kapler, who instituted the shutdown of the Alameda FD’s water rescue program, which had full training and certification until early 2009.
I have many friends in the AFD but have been criticized myself when I’ve tried to defend or speak up for the firefighters, who must have been grief-stricken at having been ORDERED to never enter the water for any rescue under Kapler’s administration. (Kapler ruined AFD morale, too, and the AFD was just beginning to recover after his resignation last fall.)
Thanks Jon
Some of those torches & pitchforks folks stumbled into my blog and boy did they seem kind of angry. Maybe when they calm down they’ll understand what I was trying to say.
Speaking of Chief Kapler, did you see the story I just posted, about Rochester? http://firelawblog.com/2011/06/discrimination-suit-against-rochester-mn-fire-tossed-but-coincidence-is-strange/
Thanks Juliet
Sounds like he may be the one with some explaining to do, as well as – perhaps – his boss who allowed that decision to stand. Some of it may come down to what did he tell them: did he make it clear what the consequences of eliminating the program would be? He should have known better.
As for an error in judgment being reversed – that’s good for Alameda, but such errors are being made all across the country and the public is oblivious… the firefighters try to warn the public but they are largely being dismissed as self-serving, greedy pigs. Its the Perfect Storm….
After reading the first article and comments, the statement that land based rescue was approved seems off point. You repeatedly stated that this was a water based rescue and the fact that the 75 foot rope represented a land based rescue attempt. SO, what changed
Randy
Thank you for joining the discussion. When you say “You repeatedly stated that this was a water based rescue” – who are you referring to? There are a number of people commenting here.
I personally do not recall discussing a distinction between land based and water based rescues. I have referred to both generically as water rescues. Some of the other commenters have drawn that distinction.
My understanding is that the Coast Guard attempted a water based rescue (from one of their boats) but it could not get close enough. The Alameda FD did not have the capability to do a water based rescue (no boat), and in 2009 had eliminated their land based water rescue program.
You are as cowardly as the firemen in Alameda. If it were your family member I bet you would think different. No matter what happen, they are viewed as cowards in the comminity. They are incompetent and proved that they will risk nothing for us. They had a duty to act. Would you agree that it would have been better for them to act and defend their actions rather than watch a untrained female swim and bring the person out?
As they drive in the fire truck and look us in the eye, we will be thinking how cowardly and useless they are to us. I will drive to Oakland and dial 911 if I have a emergency.
In the know
I am not sure who you are calling a coward, Jon Spangler or me – but that is kind of childish either way.
There is no evidence that the Alameda firefighters followed their orders because they “feared” entering the water. The water rescue service that the fire department once provided was eliminated. Picture a hospital that had an emergency room, and decided to close the emergency room. If you have a heart attack and drive there – they will not treat you. They will call 911 and an ambulance will come… BECAUSE THEY DON’T PROVIDE THAT SERVICE ANY MORE!
How is it that folks expect that a service can be eliminated (in this case for financial reasons) yet it will still be performed? And how does that turn into a question of courage, or competence.
The Memorial Day (05-30-2011) drowning/suicide of Raymond Zack here in Alameda was reviewed by former State Fire Marshall Ruben Grijalva here at a special City Council meeting and public hearing on October 11 at 7:00 p.m.
The agenda for the October 11 special meeting is here:
http://www.cityofalamedaca.gov/City-Hall/Calendar-of-Events?id=1432&a=20111011
Grijalva’s report to the City of Alameda, which was publicly released last week, is attached under item 3A.
The special City Council meeting was webcast live and the link to view the entire webcast is here:
http://www.cityofalamedaca.gov/city-hall/live-feed
According to Grijalva’s report and publicly available documents, the Interim City Manager OK’ed the allocation of $10,000 from the AFD overtime budget in 2009 but then-Chief Kapler did not spend the money to get firefighters recertified or to buy needed equipment.
No one in AFD – including Kapler – told anyone outside of AFD that the money was NOT going to be spent, and it never was. The water rescue program remained in the budget but no one ever was trained or recertified in 2009 or 2010. The memo forbidding AFD staff from entering the water remained in effect, however, pending the supposed renewal of the training program that never came.
The City Council and everyone else in the city administration thus apparently knew nothing about the “missing in action” water rescue program that still appeared in the budget for 2010-11 despite the unfulfilled promise that training would be renewed “within 30 to 45 days” from a Spring 2009 memo.
Jon
That all may be true (or it could be revisionist history after the fact to cover up a very poor decision to “save money”). It doesn’t really change much when it comes to the firefighters who are accused of wrongdoing for following orders.
The bottom line is the firefighters were not party to what the fire chief did or did not do, or the mayor did or did not know. The firefighters came to work that day, and followed orders. Perhaps the orders should never have been put in place, or should have been rescinded…. but they were in place and they were followed.