Firefighters propose cuts

My name is Diane Brown. I was at the May SWFD Board of Fire Commissioners meeting and asked the question that Henry is referring to. The only answer that I am aware of is the one that was given to me when I was laid off on April 11, 2011 and that was that my job description had been reviewed and my position as Executive Assistant (for 12 years) could not be justified. There was no mention of restructuring to me or to the former Deputy Chief (21 years of service) as to why it was the two of us. To review my question at the Board meeting, please see the recent article in the DeFuniak Herald, titled, "SWFD Rank and File Upset Over Recent Layoffs". It may give you some insight into cost saving measures that have not taken place, but were discussed with staff and others.

I hope that has cleared that question up, but if not, feel free to ask!

Have a nice day!

I just read the article last night and was going to ask if there was ever an explanation given why those recommendations were not the options used.

Some of them seemed to be very practical, easy, and much better than laying off long serving personnel, though I don't know all the details.

Thought the points about morale/Sean being a very visible community figure were spot on.

In my opinion, they did not.

Diane

IMO a restructuring would mean a review of current position descriptions in light of a goal to streamline an operation might be stated by someone in exactly the same manner in which you described Diane. The goal seems to have been to discover if the current positions could be either reduced or eliminated during the drive to contain, control or reduce costs.

Please bear in mind that I personally would not have stated the reasons given in that manner ( assuming the statement is an actual quote) but I believe it conveys the actual intent. You must remember that my statements of reasons are based on my recollection of what I heard as well. Layoffs are never pleasant for either party.

Bob

Bob,

Yes, that is an actual quote, trust me, I remember it clearly. I agree with "Scooterbug's" reply that other measures could have been taken before laying off two very dedicated, hardworking, long term people who loved the Fire District and this community. It just seems odd to me that since that layoff, no other cost measures have taken place and time is running out to find over two million dollars (at least I have heard that is the recent figure). But, that's just my opinion and I am just one resident/taxpayer.

You are correct, layoffs are never pleasant for anyone, but they are heartbreaking when there were other options at least for now and until negotiations were close to conclusion. After 12 years with the District, I probably know more about what is going on than the ordinary taxpayer.

I am not a bitter or disgruntled employee, but if I thought that the approximately $200,000+ saved by the layoff was going to save the Fire District, I would have volunteered to leave; but I don't think that was the case.

Diane

Bob, I'm not sure what I can and can't legaly post.

The document was distributed in a "open meeting" per Florida statute. The document has no legal protection and you were given a copy - you are free to use,distribute,duplicate it in any manner that you see fit. That being said you also were recording the negotiations.

My only reason to ask that you post the offer was I knew you:

1. Had a copy
2. That you also recorded the session
3. That you could best summarize the key points or simply provide a copy rather than relying on memory on some issues that were very technical.

I believe that when you publicly release one "option" and another option is on the table it should be also disclosed in the spirit of fairness.

For the record I have made a public records request to obtain the document and will post it here.

If I remember correctly (?) a key different proposals - no- on second thought let me just simply post the offer when I receive it.

I will also secure the actuarial study to confirm the 109 life span statement. I personally find it difficult to understand that, but I have been wrong before.

Bob, I was surprised about the 109 life span, but that was the number given to me by Mr. Flanagan who sits on the pension board via the Fire Board. This number seems very inflated but the way he explained it we have no option but to use this number.

Also, as far as the proposal you were only off on one number, they proposed a .07 raise in mills. The rest of that proposal had to do with taking money out of reserves, cash forward from beating the budget, the 3.5 positions they have now cut from management, and as we found out in the last meeting they assumed the continuation of the cut to service that was done this year. This is a matter that is subject to possible arbitration and we are hopeful that we can work this out so the District does not spend even more money on lawer fees. As far as what was asked from us there was a Pay Freeze to stop step increases that are granted by the contract, a stop/restart of the retirement plan to offset their costs, and an increase in the amount of money paid to our retirement plan also reducing the cost to the District. I have said it before I think we are close to a deal. We need more information before we can make an informed decision.

I asked a very specific question of the board and at that time they were not able to answer. I was just wondering if anyone in the community had the same question. Diane is right there were a number of options given to the board in February and none of them have been implemented as far as I know. Chief Talbert presented these options to the board and no action was taken. I am concerned with the lack of communication that exists between the board and the taxpayers. If they are not discussing these things in the public meetings where are they being discussed? Bob, you had a better answer than what I was given. I get that the need to reorganize might exist I was just hoping that there was a good explanation as to how these positions were picked. The things that were said in the news article were spot on about morale in the department and that is why we (SWPFFA) have a concern.

Also, before I forget at the last meeting the budget shortfall going into next year based on the sheet that we were given was 2.75 million. We are trying to identify all things that are going to drive that number up so we can get a solid number.

30a, I wish I could explain how they came up with the fact that we are all going to live to be 109. I was told the only person who knows when your going to die was the actuary. I asked this question to a member of the retirement board and I was told they use a chart. My point in mentioning this was that we spend a lot of time worried aobut these unfunded liabilites but, it just appears to me that these numbers are too easily manipulated. I say that also knowing that the national average life span of a retired firefighter is about 9 years. That number is also changed by many things. Someone asked me why the low lifespan and all I can say is I don't know, but if I did I'd probably be rich.

Does anyone else find it weird that the average life span after retirement is 9, and the pension board is using 109??
I'd hate to find out it was a typo somewhere along the way.

Does anyone else find it weird that the average life span after retirement is 9, and the pension board is using 109??
I'd hate to find out it was a typo somewhere along the way.

Bob's trying to get a hold of one of the studies, so hopfully we shall see what state this fund is in. Legislation this year also mandates more transparency for these things, so given time we'll be able to get a better understanding of what if any liability taxpayers have.

30a, I wish I could explain how they came up with the fact that we are all going to live to be 109. I was told the only person who knows when your going to die was the actuary. I asked this question to a member of the retirement board and I was told they use a chart. My point in mentioning this was that we spend a lot of time worried aobut these unfunded liabilites but, it just appears to me that these numbers are too easily manipulated. I say that also knowing that the national average life span of a retired firefighter is about 9 years. That number is also changed by many things. Someone asked me why the low lifespan and all I can say is I don't know, but if I did I'd probably be rich.

I did a little searching around, and it turns out a number of retirement benefit systems have done research showing that the shorter life expectancy for safety personnel claim a myth. Police and firefighters live just as long as long as the rest of us (even a bit longer since they tend to retire earlier).

http://www.newgeography.com/content/001145-police-pensions-and-voodoo-actuarials

Thanks Henry. I totally agree with you regarding Board and taxpayer communication. Staff was told in the February 2011 staff meeting that options included five to fifteen percent pay reductions, health insurance plan changes which would include staff participation, selling of SWFD owned land, reduce or eliminate commissioner stipends of $500 per month (this figure does not include the taxpayer money that is paid for two spouses to be included on the plan), use more reserve funds and increasing the millage to 1.0. All this was going to be considered in order to save jobs (at least that is what we were told). So, while eveyone was not overjoyed about paycuts and paying for health insurance, it was certainly a better option than losing one's job. Two months later, without any of these options being put in place, Sean and I were gone.

For almost 12 years, I was told that the Fire District is a family, that it is different from working in the public sector. In my opinion, this is not how you treat family. You do everything you can to save them. I am also wondering when did the Fire Board of Commissioners wake up and realize that the District was in dire financial straits. I knew over two years ago and could see the direction that this was going. The only cost saving measures that were put into place when it was obvious that things were going "downhill" were eliminating the postage meter, getting rid of the "doormat service", cancelling water, coffee service, plastic spoons, station temperatures were to be reset to save on the electric bill, etc. There were some fuel conservation efforts put into place and staff vehicles were no longer taken home. Right after Sean and I were laid off, staff vehicles were taken home again (so much for the fuel savings). These are all good efforts (well, most of them), but the financial problems are huge and these efforts are minor compared to the big picture. Truthfully, I just don't get it and sorry, but it seems absurd to me.

I received the attached document that was the SWFD's proposal to the FF union negotiating team.

View attachment Gmail - Management Proposal.pdf

This is Chief Talberts comment concerning questions that Henry says were not answered.


Quote: I took the time to look at the bulletin board you mentioned and would say that you are "spot on" with regard to the Fire District's analysis of containing/reducing costs and ultimately our reduction in force to capture costs this year to help reduce the impact next FY. Unfortunately it appears that Mr Apfelbach refuses to accept the response that was given to him directly by me days after I reduced our staff as well as our board at the last fire board meeting. I think you would agree that any reduction in force is painful for all involved particularly those on the receiving end of this tough decision. However, it is of utmost importance that we maintain our professional presence and stature in the community and not engage in any theories and innuendo regarding two long-standing and dedicated employees of our Fire District. They are already unfortunate casualties in this challenging economic time for all of us.

Thanks Henry. I totally agree with you regarding Board and taxpayer communication. Staff was told in the February 2011 staff meeting that options included five to fifteen percent pay reductions, health insurance plan changes which would include staff participation, selling of SWFD owned land, reduce or eliminate commissioner stipends of $500 per month (this figure does not include the taxpayer money that is paid for two spouses to be included on the plan), use more reserve funds and increasing the millage to 1.0. All this was going to be considered in order to save jobs (at least that is what we were told). So, while eveyone was not overjoyed about paycuts and paying for health insurance, it was certainly a better option than losing one's job. Two months later, without any of these options being put in place, Sean and I were gone.

For almost 12 years, I was told that the Fire District is a family, that it is different from working in the public sector. In my opinion, this is not how you treat family. You do everything you can to save them. I am also wondering when did the Fire Board of Commissioners wake up and realize that the District was in dire financial straits. I knew over two years ago and could see the direction that this was going. The only cost saving measures that were put into place when it was obvious that things were going "downhill" were eliminating the postage meter, getting rid of the "doormat service", cancelling water, coffee service, plastic spoons, station temperatures were to be reset to save on the electric bill, etc. There were some fuel conservation efforts put into place and staff vehicles were no longer taken home. Right after Sean and I were laid off, staff vehicles were taken home again (so much for the fuel savings). These are all good efforts (well, most of them), but the financial problems are huge and these efforts are minor compared to the big picture. Truthfully, I just don't get it and sorry, but it seems absurd to me.

I think that some of the savings items mentioned here should still be implemented, but I agree that items like plastic spoons are not going to fix the budget.

I really don't understand staff vehicles being taken home. I can somewhat understand the arguments presented for the police taking cars home, but aren't all FD responses done in trucks/ambulances by people on call AT the fire houses, or who go to the fire houses to be deployed w/ supplemental vehicles/equipment?

Not to derail the discussion, but IMO (especially with $4 gas and budget crunches) we need to get practical about all of the vehicles provided to various government employees.

My guess (and I would love to see numbers to contradict me if I'm wrong) is that if we paid the standard IRS rate for someone to use their personal car on the rare occassions when they must deploy from home we would save a lot of $$. (2011 rate is 51 cents a mile).

I also question why the private sector is expected to drive themselves to work for free, yet politicians and government employees (many who make multiple times the pay and are salaried) need to be compensated for doing so.

Eliminating $500 a month stipends for fire commissioners seems like a budget no-brainer.

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.

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.

Diane

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.

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.

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.

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. .

What other options do you have? If that is the reason you are posting I am willing to listen.

View attachment Untitled.pdf
Bob and Henry I think I have figured out how to attach it

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.

Diane

I worked for 30+ years for the Boy Scouts of America an organization that is truly about family and its employees were small in number and a very tight knit "family group".

I resent your statement that "numbers type" people do not understand "family". That is stereotypical thinking and does not recognize that one size does not fit all. You obviously do not know me or what I am about.

Your post also seems to indicate that my posts are posts for the Walton County Taxpayers Association and they are not. When I post under my name Bob Hudson those posts are my thoughts and only my thoughts. I am no longer the President of that organization nor am I a member of their board of directors. They have an login on Sowal entitled "WCTA". That login is only available to the President and Bonnie McQuiston is the President. I am still involved with the organization doing certain technical type of analysis for them as well as maintaining their website at their direction - they control the content - I simply do the HTML work for them.

THE WCTA has for 29 years had "cost saving" measures as just one of its stated objectives. And they have had representatives at most if not all of the pension board meetings and SWFD board meetings as the budget process in not only the SWFD organization, but every taxing authority in Walton County. Your statement that the WCTA should have a concern for cost saving proposals is a red herring as their history and track record are proof of just the opposite.

Yes - you are free to post in any thread you choose, but this thread was about the negotiations between the FF union and the SWFD board.