||| FROM GREG AYERS |||
Few things get my attention these days but I still go to Facebook from time to time. Today was different. Wow. Shocking. I am providing 
so that no one can accuse me of taking it out of context. I redacted one part of one sentence as it was a personal attack on a past member of the department and I do not want to perpetuate what may be inaccurate.
First is chain of command in the fire service. Second is appropriate public disclosure. The buck stops with the Chief, or in our case Assistant Chief. Therefore, if an officer, let alone line personnel, say something, it must reflect the views of the Chief. If it doesn’t, the chain is broken and inoperable, no one is in charge. While the Captain states “my stance” there is no me or my allowed to come out from the chain of command, unless approved from the top. So, the viewpoint provided by a Captain today should be considered to be a reflection of the views of the Assistant Chief, else OIFR is broken. When you see it, you will come to the same conclusion. OIFR is broken.
Quickly, the high points:
MOST IMPORTANT – The department apparatus are UNSAFE. Not just needing replaced but presently unsafe. I have emailed the Chief and the chair of the board to request they be taken out of service and independently inspected. Are they unsafe on the roads? For the operators? For our volunteers? Or are they inoperable and won’t save life and property. There are a bunch of “lettered” groups that need to know this – WSP, SJCSO, DOT, and LNI. Let alone the community.
Second point – If you oppose the levy you are “trailer trash”. I am not sure who will be offended most from this. The people who live in trailers or the people who oppose the levy, or both. Such derogatory language must be the norm at OIFR? You are with us, or you are trash.
Third, and final point – Then there are the candidates for election. It appears OIFR believes that the candidates who filed are somehow nefarious. They are being used by a small group of people to take on OIFR. Wow, conspiracy theory? The candidates need to speak up. I am really interested in hearing the response of Randy Gaylord about being used so that he would run. He was a pillar of independence as County Prosecutor and County Attorney. Somehow, I doubt if he was being used by anyone as a vendetta, as OIFR is claiming through their Captain. Again, it comes to the OIFR philosophy – you are with us or you are the enemy as independence is devalued.
To me it is simple – this is yet another sign and symptom of the dysfunctional situation at OIFR. Many companies have specific policies and procedures about using social media to comment on your employer or job for exactly this reason – the employee becomes the organizations spokesperson by default. Many people in corporate America have had their employment terminated for such reasons. I would say, in summary, “OIFR, until you get your house in order, please do not hold your hand out and ask for more money”. Please join me in rejecting the levy. It is time for OIFR to quit treating those with opposing opinions as trailer trash and to allow community input in the direction of the fire district, its services and the fair and reasonable costs for these services.
I’ve observed the various issues with the Orcas Fire Department from afar over the past few years. While I don’t wish to diminish your concerns, I would like to make two general points: 1. Less money does not usually improve organizations. Typically public organizations experiencing various dysfunctions improve with increased funding. There are naturally limits to this and this is not true in every case, but particularly for small organizations, this tends to be true. 2. Fire is a huge hazard that we face on Orcas Island. Any given summer could see a catastrophic blaze that gets out of control. I’d like to make sure that our fire department has all the resources it needs to respond in a timely manner to keep us safe. While I don’t support a levy raise by default, I think it’s worth hearing out the fire department when they ask for more funds.
It is curious that the desire to help elect a skilled and qualifies commission is painted as a way to ‘get back at” OIFR. Having volunteered for 22 years, I have great affinity for the department and for the volunteers. OIFR deserves a great board and solid administration to best meet their critical mission. It makes sense to me that we would wait until we have a fairly elected commission (the current board has only one elected member with the other 4 members having been appointed) to put forth a levy. No one is suggesting the department should not be funded. The question is how much and for what. Best to have the community elect the folks who will make this substantial decision.
I am appalled by Captain Jason Medeiros’s comments on Facebook. Next week at the meeting of the Fire Commission on July 17, the sitting commissioners should apologize to the public and distance themselves from those comments. For the record, Greg Ayers has it right – I am running for Fire Commissioner in November to bring good governance to the Commission. Good governance requires an apology when needed and truth about the levy; like the fact that it’s an 82 percent increase right away and that will be permanent and there is no built-in accountability to how the money will be spent. There are a lot of ways to finance the revenue for the fire district, but it requires some time for public input. Fortunately, there will be time to do that next year when we have five elected Commissioners and a fire chief.
Michael,
You are absolutely correct. The fire department is a critical utility. They need a new levy. However, if you examine this particular levy request closely there are many flaws. Too many to approve it at this point.
Despite what they are saying a “no” vote at this time does NOT drive the department off a cliff. They are fully funded through the end of 2024 with over a million$ in reserve.
They have time to rethink this levy. An 83% increase with no expiration date is just not going to pass.
Let’s replace this board at the ballot box. There are some fantastic candidates. We can do that this year and get to work as a community to come up with a reasonable plan.
There is an irony in the Captain asserting he was driven from Orcas by the high cost of housing, yet advocating for a levy which represents a significant increase in property tax. Housing costs on Orcas will not improve if we pass this levy. Properly funding OIFR is critical, but the levy should be limited in duration and tailored to the actual need.
Randy, while you are correct on the technical side of this issue, mind you, I have my own issues with this ask.
I will PUBLICLY STATE , and this is no reflection on the providing officer.. Captain Medeiros is not a Political Figure.. he is an INDIVIDUAL SPEAKING FROM HIS OWN,
How I miss that!! I’ve know him from his first engagement with Orcas Fire..
Randy, this is a messy turmoil of lack of appropriate leadership, the doers stepping up to bridge the gaps.. it’s that simple.
I Personally don’t fault Captain Medeiros for stepping up! His moral Courage is welcoming. That takes More than just caring, and devotion to help bring the Financial quest up front. Yes he is employed by Orcas Fire. I would hope and Pray Captain Medeiros is on watch on my family’s call.
I want less Political discussion and more Wholesome discussion on how to proceed.
Randy, you bring a lot of New Talent to the table, but I am asking you to observe our existing team. Jason is one of the mightiest doers we have witnessed in Orcas Fire.
MY WORDS.
There’s room to improve, my hope is the best can contribute!
My two cents.
Sylvia, the irony is that “good paying jobs” on orcas don’t pay enough to make living here possible. Same problem with teachers in large part. The taxes aren’t the core problem. It’s the cost of housing. Fundamentally, Jason’s comments about Bob phalan are accurate. You can’t hide your past when there are court records. – it’s not just apparatus, pay and facilities. One example: OIFR would like every volunteer EMT to have an AED. In the past, we’ve come close. Right now, something like 65% of the AEDs we have are aged out or have expired batteries and pads. We acquired them through grants and gifts but can’t afford to keep the operational. The material on the department website regarding the levy is accurate and the need is real unless the community wants a radically different capability. That could mean closing fire stations and divesting apparatus and that would raise everyone’s fire insurance.
The average age of the vehicles considered “Fire and Rescue” is 17.1 years. If you look at National Standards, generally, 20 years is typical life of Fire engines and 25 at the outside. So, we should have an average age of 10 or maybe 12.5 years and we’re essentially 5-7 years behind with a “balloon payment” coming due. If you weighted our average age based on cost (Engines like 21, 23, 25, 26 the most expensive and many times the cost of a brush truck) it’s even more dire. Our “City” trucks like 21,23,25 and 26 are the oldest. The reality is we retired two water tenders that were 1977 and 1978 vehicles that had been refurbished but they were unable to draft (limited from the day they were built) and valves were failing an unable to be repaired. We could not afford and did not replace them. So, we had 4 and now we have 2. Arguably 2 isn’t enough, but the department isn’t even asking for 4. They are just asking for funding to allow us to keep 2 and replace them on schedule.
There are many ways to finance the needs of a fire department. BUT THEY ALL INVOLVE PAYING TAXES except for grants and donations. If you issue bonds, you need taxes to pay off the bonds (plus interest). If you take loans, you need taxes to pay off the loans (with interest). If those taxes are in question (or due to expire at some point), the interest rate on the bond or the loan will be higher and there will always be interest to be paid. There is no such thing as a free lunch. The department is very active and aggressive in efforts to secure grants. It hasn’t and won’t be sufficient or reliable. Whether career or volunteer, management, staff or commissioners, they take it as a duty to be there on everyone’s worst day and they want to be sure they will be.
Tony,
I want to make sure everyone has it correct. As far as affordable housing, do you not think that property owners will pass this increased cost on to renters? The levy is $20 or more a month that rent will need to go up, see orcasfire.org or my prior editorial on fire math. Both come to the same conclusion. If people can’t afford the rent currently, OIFR is only making it more expensive than before.
Second there is no mention of Bob Phalan in my post. This must be related to another attack OIFR is doing inside the organization. Is Bob equivalent to the use by OIFR of “Trailer Trash”?
Your arguments on AEDs shows the lack of priority setting versus finances for OIFR. AEDs are $1650 each at full price (see aedsuperstore.com) and the price I was able to obtain was a discounted price for OIFR of $890 from their medical distributor. Chief Williams chose not to purchase any at the reduced cost. I volunteered to contribute them, crickets. The cost of pads are approximately $240 (again see aedsuperstore.com). The OIFR distributor should be able to get them for $165, yet less if OIFR commits to a multi-year replacement program. If OIFR can not, I am more than willing to help get a good quote. Batteries last at least 4 years. Assuming 100 volunteers (an overestimate based on orcasfire.org), and YOUR 65% number, the MONTHLY cost for the next 4 years is $1737.50. Thereafter the cost is $500/year. OIFR can not afford $1737.50/month? Shows yet again mismanagement on the part of OIFR.
Lastly your comment is correct on the fact that purchasing new apparatus will increase taxes, but no where near as much as proposed. They should be purchased with bonds, with bond payment over the life of the truck. The cost per structure engine is $100,000/year with a bond. OIFR is intending to pay with cash which is not the normal way to make such large purchase.. This is why we need a commissioner change so that there is a separate capital budget, a budget funded by bonds not a levy.
Summary – OIFR proposes to make housing less affordable. They chose to defame the people who disagree with them. They talk about candidates and community members in a derogatory and unacceptable manner. And they do not prioritize very inexpensive, but critical life saving devices which cost next to nothing per life saves. These items mentioned in your post again shows the lack of leadership of OIFR.
Please join me in voting no for the levy. Community input is critical. OIFR requires quality leadership and a independent board. They need to stop insulting the residents of Orcas Island. Lastly they need to involve the community in setting priorities and fair costs for services.
Clyde
Jason has done good work for the department and loosing him due to the levy failing will be a shame. However legal precedent and general good practices is that Jason was speaking for the department. As I stated before, there is no “me” or “my” in a solid chain of command. By default he was speaking for OIFR.
Greg, I appreciate your thoughts.. I am not familiar with said article… Face Book being such a High Standard of intellectual Communication… but I have witnessed probably more than once even at a Commissioners meeting, where the Chair will excuse themselves giving the helm to another Board member, stepping down of their elected roll to share their own viewpoint… then rejoining the group through that said process.. I am not defending, don’t need to…
This is a very serious situation, for Orcas Fire and it didn’t happen overnight..
The good news is, discussion is happening, that’s huge!
Vote NO
Haha – This “Trailer Trash” is voting NO on this particular levy. Even here in Dogpatch, we can still deduce that we will need a more suitable levy than the one that got us into this mess. Jason Madeiros contradicts his own argument – another convincing reason to vote no.
I don’t understand how staff supposedly “can’t be paid” for the last 3 months of 2023 without this levy passing, when there is plenty of money to cover 2023 and ’24, and time to craft a more representative and exacting levy. The Dept. already robbed Peter to pay Paul and can’t even pay back that money they took. How not? Why not? What the heck happened? Why and how would there be any need to dip so hard into Capital funds to pay for Operations, when it was known for years that new fire engines were needed, and we’re down from 4 to 2, which need replacing, with another ‘balloon payment’ due?
Career staff were shamed and driven out of the Dept. and accused of being greedy and purposely working more overtime. Then the new staff comes in and collective bargains for much higher pay than the “career” staff who were driven out. How fiscally responsible is that? Someone please explain this to me in plain speak, because the more I learn, the more murky things get and the more questions come to light.
Will increasing land taxes drastically for this ONE levy (not to mention all the other levies people are asked to support for other essential services) help turn this inflationary trend around? Will housing prices fall? Of course not. More money, without the fiscal responsibility to manage it, won’t solve these problems.
If the Dept. could not resist using capital funds for operations, then why would any sane, thinking, rational person vote for an 82% permanent increase and a levy that allows no safe separation of capital funds from operations funds?
Shouldn’t we be investigating exactly how we got here, to learn from it – so it never happens again? It’s simple. The voters want an elected board with which they can have meaningful, respectful audience, know transparency and responsible governance and representation, and together as a community, move forward on a better-tailored levy to help support OIFR.
I foresee a T-shirt coming out of this…
Greg, literally “no”, the department is not in a position to spend $1800/mo right now. – and we don’t have the revenue to pay off the bonds over the life of the trucks. The annual cost to catch up and stay caught up isn’t within our present or past levy authority.