Don't know who you are, but you are certainly getting the picture. I wish the rest of the taxpayers were. Approximately a month or so before the Deputy Chief was laid off it was decided that he would be the only one to take a staff vehicle home, due to the fact that he was in charge of operations. All other use was discontinued until right after the layoffs. You are correct actually, the District Chief and firefighters are all more than capable of responding to any emergency and they do an absolutely excellent job, all on their own, I might add. If it was an absolutely catastrophic emergency; i.e., mass casualty incident, they would need "all hands on deck", including the Fire Chief, the EMS/Operations Chief, and Assistant Chief. Fortunately, those incidents are extremely rare. Also, if you have a staff vehicle you are required to live within 20 miles of Station 3/HQ and everyone actually lives quite close to that station. There are other staff vehicles and I am not certain if those are still being taken home.
Firefighters propose cuts
- Thread starter Bob Wells
- Start date
-
Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
Well, maybe Henry will tell us what that response was to his question. I was at the May Board meeting and I didn't hear anything about the layoffs until I brought it up under public comment. For the most part, it appeared that no one was going to mention what was supposed to be a major cost saving measure.....Also, there was $115,000 paid out to us in compensated leave, how was that cost saving? I know it was already accounted for in that line item, but so were our salaries accounted for through September 30th.
If someone would just be honest there wouldn't be any theories or innuendos or rumors or whatever you want to call them.
If someone would just be honest there wouldn't be any theories or innuendos or rumors or whatever you want to call them.
Diane
Are you inferring that I am not being honest ?
If not me then who is "someone" ?
Bob
Are you inferring that I am not being honest ?
If not me then who is "someone" ?
Bob
Oh no, not at all - I don't even really know you. I just keep hearing words like transparency, etc. and what I mean by honest is that everyone just "tell it like it really is". I haven't heard the theories or innuendos that were mentioned, so I am "assuming" that "someone" out there isn't being honest or there wouldn't be any rumors, etc., it would be proven fact.
I believe you are being honest with what you are told, whether you are told things in "all honesty", I don't know and neither you or I can control that. I do know that I am being honest and forthright with what I do know and am telling the truth in whatever I say.
I believe you are being honest with what you are told, whether you are told things in "all honesty", I don't know and neither you or I can control that. I do know that I am being honest and forthright with what I do know and am telling the truth in whatever I say.
Bob, I have a different copy of those numbers. They are mostly the same but there are some differences. As soon as I can figure out how to get it on here I will post it. I have a scanned copy but for some reason it will not upload my jpeg.
As for the question. I have not asked you to ask the chief. I have addressed the question to the Fire Board. The day after the first layoff I talked to Chief and he told me “Well Henry I had to make a tough decision and that is why they say it's lonely at the top". He did tell me that it was not job performance related and purely budget driven. I only ask these questions of the board because I think the Fire Board owes it to the general public to discuss these types of changes in an open meeting. I bring this up because you have a guy who gave 21 years of his life to this community and when there was a deal on the table to let this guy leave with something they sent him to the street with unemployment (which knowing Sean he is probably not taking). This is not Wall Street, we are a family and I know that is hard to understand. These are people who I have shared good times with and some very bad times with. When you do that it creates a bond. I knew up until this year we were all in this together. Some people are never going to understand that bond and I get that. I have accepted Chief Talbert's response. I am curious as to what the Fire Board has to say.
As for the question. I have not asked you to ask the chief. I have addressed the question to the Fire Board. The day after the first layoff I talked to Chief and he told me “Well Henry I had to make a tough decision and that is why they say it's lonely at the top". He did tell me that it was not job performance related and purely budget driven. I only ask these questions of the board because I think the Fire Board owes it to the general public to discuss these types of changes in an open meeting. I bring this up because you have a guy who gave 21 years of his life to this community and when there was a deal on the table to let this guy leave with something they sent him to the street with unemployment (which knowing Sean he is probably not taking). This is not Wall Street, we are a family and I know that is hard to understand. These are people who I have shared good times with and some very bad times with. When you do that it creates a bond. I knew up until this year we were all in this together. Some people are never going to understand that bond and I get that. I have accepted Chief Talbert's response. I am curious as to what the Fire Board has to say.
Post it as a pdf file.
No Henry you did not ask me to talk to the Chief. You stated that you were unaware of whether you could legally post the copy you were given. I understand Florida Public Records and the Florida Sunshine law very well and simply made a request of the "custodian of records" for a copy which he provided and is posted above.
I did not start this thread and hold no power over the SWFD board to post on this board. FF2 started this thread and it was about the FF's union proposal that would potentially save the district over 800,000 next year.
My reasons for posting were to try and provide other options that might be considered a different way to solve this "perfect storm" as I described during budget hearings to each and every taxing authorities way 4 years ago.
I stated then that the growth in property values would not continue (part one of the storm) at the rates that everyone was basing their budgets on - they were unsustainable. I said that the decisions to not restrain the budget growth based on the continued growth would have consequences and it did. The citizens passed amendment 1 (part 2 of the storm) and finally a recession based on a collapse of the housing market and most financial institutions (part 3).
You never, never, never fund recurring expenses with non-recurring revenues.
Now we must pick up the pieces in a well thought out approach because the property values South of the Bay will not reach 2005-2006 valuations for a very long time due to the credit market, and caps that a part of Amendment 1 that cap the increases on non-homesteaded property.
This thread seems to have spun off into a discussion concerning the layoff of two individuals.
I quote "have no dog in that fight" and will now restrict my responses to this thread to information that I have a hard copy of from the person providing the requested info. If you have problems with what I was provided - take it up with Chief Talbert. If people post things here without hard copy - I will call you out. I have grown tired of he said she said - who is he and who is she.
I tried to meet with Brian Flannagan today to get a copy of the actuarial study but he was out today. Once I get to the bottom of the 109 year statement you have made that will be my last post in this thread.
See you at the negotiating session tomorrow.
No Henry you did not ask me to talk to the Chief. You stated that you were unaware of whether you could legally post the copy you were given. I understand Florida Public Records and the Florida Sunshine law very well and simply made a request of the "custodian of records" for a copy which he provided and is posted above.
I did not start this thread and hold no power over the SWFD board to post on this board. FF2 started this thread and it was about the FF's union proposal that would potentially save the district over 800,000 next year.
My reasons for posting were to try and provide other options that might be considered a different way to solve this "perfect storm" as I described during budget hearings to each and every taxing authorities way 4 years ago.
I stated then that the growth in property values would not continue (part one of the storm) at the rates that everyone was basing their budgets on - they were unsustainable. I said that the decisions to not restrain the budget growth based on the continued growth would have consequences and it did. The citizens passed amendment 1 (part 2 of the storm) and finally a recession based on a collapse of the housing market and most financial institutions (part 3).
You never, never, never fund recurring expenses with non-recurring revenues.
Now we must pick up the pieces in a well thought out approach because the property values South of the Bay will not reach 2005-2006 valuations for a very long time due to the credit market, and caps that a part of Amendment 1 that cap the increases on non-homesteaded property.
This thread seems to have spun off into a discussion concerning the layoff of two individuals.
I quote "have no dog in that fight" and will now restrict my responses to this thread to information that I have a hard copy of from the person providing the requested info. If you have problems with what I was provided - take it up with Chief Talbert. If people post things here without hard copy - I will call you out. I have grown tired of he said she said - who is he and who is she.
I tried to meet with Brian Flannagan today to get a copy of the actuarial study but he was out today. Once I get to the bottom of the 109 year statement you have made that will be my last post in this thread.
See you at the negotiating session tomorrow.
Last edited:
I agree bob. I am trying to understand the same things. I figured that the layoffs are of public intrest because they affect the budget.
I have the hard copy but can't seem to figure out how to turn it into a PDF. I think what I have is an updated copy. It has more numbers, and is what was handed to me at the table as you said. One thing to note about the start of this thread and if you did listen to the first meeting you are aware that we did confirm that the inital proposal did save the money stated. The things we were arguing about were which "pot" certian money came from.
I hope what I was told about the lifespan is wrong. That would make better sense and would restore some faith in the math behind these plans. I can't change what I was told though. I will say after talking to the Chariman of the Pension Board he seems to think that is not right but we are going to try and get an answer tomorrow.
I have the hard copy but can't seem to figure out how to turn it into a PDF. I think what I have is an updated copy. It has more numbers, and is what was handed to me at the table as you said. One thing to note about the start of this thread and if you did listen to the first meeting you are aware that we did confirm that the inital proposal did save the money stated. The things we were arguing about were which "pot" certian money came from.
I hope what I was told about the lifespan is wrong. That would make better sense and would restore some faith in the math behind these plans. I can't change what I was told though. I will say after talking to the Chariman of the Pension Board he seems to think that is not right but we are going to try and get an answer tomorrow.
Last edited:
What other options do you have? If that is the reason you are posting I am willing to listen.
Henry,
You are so right. You can't expect "numbers" type people to understand the bond that exists at the Fire District. It's not their fault, they have never worked there and to them we are just a number; like people are in some (not all) corporations, etc. From my very first day the "family" concept was ingrained in me and I loved it. Of course that was under a totally different leadership. I have developed relationships at SWFD that will last a lifetime and I cherish that.
Bob Hudson appears to be slightly frustrated that this "thread" has mentioned the layoffs, etc. First, let me say that this is not an exclusive thread for the pension issue, anyone can reply and respond to issues or questions that are asked and that's what I did. You would think that the Walton County Taxpayer's Association would have an interest in cost saving measures that are not taking place and other expenditures of the District. I know that the taxpayer's should have an interest - it is their hard earned money! I could have started my own thread and called it "What South Walton Taxpayer's Need To Know", but I didn't. The WCTA are supposed to be the "watchdogs" for the community. I'm not sure how they can "watch" what they don't know about. There are other obvious issues that they are not even bringing up in a public setting. In my opinion, it's just all politics and it's all about money, two things I could not care less about.
Bob H. is also correct that he told the District several years ago that financial trouble was on the way and get ready. Too bad no one listened at that time or they wouldn't be trying to pick up the pieces this late in the game.
You are so right. You can't expect "numbers" type people to understand the bond that exists at the Fire District. It's not their fault, they have never worked there and to them we are just a number; like people are in some (not all) corporations, etc. From my very first day the "family" concept was ingrained in me and I loved it. Of course that was under a totally different leadership. I have developed relationships at SWFD that will last a lifetime and I cherish that.
Bob Hudson appears to be slightly frustrated that this "thread" has mentioned the layoffs, etc. First, let me say that this is not an exclusive thread for the pension issue, anyone can reply and respond to issues or questions that are asked and that's what I did. You would think that the Walton County Taxpayer's Association would have an interest in cost saving measures that are not taking place and other expenditures of the District. I know that the taxpayer's should have an interest - it is their hard earned money! I could have started my own thread and called it "What South Walton Taxpayer's Need To Know", but I didn't. The WCTA are supposed to be the "watchdogs" for the community. I'm not sure how they can "watch" what they don't know about. There are other obvious issues that they are not even bringing up in a public setting. In my opinion, it's just all politics and it's all about money, two things I could not care less about.
Bob H. is also correct that he told the District several years ago that financial trouble was on the way and get ready. Too bad no one listened at that time or they wouldn't be trying to pick up the pieces this late in the game.