Fire Dept. vs. BSO: WHO WON IN 2005? - 03/29/05

Like most residents of Deerfield Beach, we don't know heads or tails about whether the city should disband the fire department and contract fire services out to the county in the same fashion as we hired the county cops to patrol our streets. What we do know is that tensions between rank-and-file and department higher-ups are rising, and the idea of such a merger boils the blood of many residents. It is likely that a proposal will be made by the BSO unless the city indicates from the outset that it is not interested.

The possible "merger" of fire services with the BSO was an issue in the 2005 city election, but the outcome with respect to this is not clear. The election certainly did not clear the air. Firemen seem to be in favor of it; the administration opposes. Some candidates wanted to hear a proposal from the BSO. Other candidates were dead set against the merger idea and this reflects a body of sentiment within the community to keep the fire department intact. Someone has even set up a PAC to protect the turf. Almost everyone agrees that it would be a complicated deal involving the transfer of millions of dollars worth of city property to the county. This would require a referendum, which precludes any midnight moves.

There are other issues as well. Voters in Deerfield Beach have voted millions in bond issues to upgrade fire department facilities. We have yet to see many of these improvements and some have questioned whether bond issue monies have been properly used. Yet these doubts did not seem to bother voters much in the last bond issue election; voters are almost always willing to approve bonds where public safety is involved. Nonetheless, the merger notion does not arise from nowhere and concerns that the city does not do the best job with fire services is part of the equation.

This is not to say that firemen who would like to go to the county are motivated solely by concerns about public safety. They believe they can get a better deal with BSO. There have been missteps by the city administration that serve to fuel the firemen's urge to merge. The loyalty oath is one example. The Langlois case is another.

At some point in the discussion, the Broward Sheriff's Office itself must be considered. The scandal-racked agency controls county fire services. Whether the charges and accusations against the cops touch the fire department or not, somebody is going to bring it up as an argument against merger.

On the other hand, the city's administration of fire services may not be a model of good government either. This does not necessarily lead to drastic measures like merger, but does suggest the need for better administration. Improvement of fire administration seems to be a special interest of Commissioner Gonot, who grilled the fire chief at a commission meeting about the use of overtime money by the department. Without detailing the issue (this is far-afield from the topic focus of this web site), the concern is that overtime pay is being used as a kind of "patronage" by the city administration. No one put it quite that way, but that is an implication. In any event, this "patronage" or misadministration -- whatever it is -- is costing the taxpayers almost a million bucks a year.

There is a memo circulating around and along the e-mail trail which charges favoritism in the fire service. It's called "Club FD" and supposedly written by a fireman. We have no special knowledge of its veracity, but it does provide insight into the hostility between some Deerfield Beach firemen and the department big-wigs. While the memo is written in a facetious style and the charges are not detailed, it lists serious accusations of misadministration, including the wrongful use of city property.

The "club" to which the memo refers is an alleged group of department insiders "that affords special benefits to special people." Several incidents of finagling with overtime pay are cited.

It alleges that someone "borrowed" a department generator during the hurricanes.

It says that people have received pay for hours they did not work and some receive more overtime pay alone than even higher ranking personnel receive in full pay. It alleges that someone was assigned to a "Strike Team" that did not yet exist and was paid overtime.

The paper suggests that some firemen make more as a dispatcher (that would be extra-duty paid as overtime, we assume) than as a firefighter. It implies that some department personnel derive more income from overtime than from regular pay.

On the other end of this, Chief Lother says the department is trying its best to hire dispatchers and uses fire personnel only as a stop gap, and overall runs a first-rate fire department. Whining and griping is commonplace in virtually every organization. It may be an indication of low morale, but must be considered in the context that lower-ranking personnel are not paid to get the whole picture and may not know it. And even if some of these allegations are true, it does not support the case for merger. What it does say is that a shakeup is needed and city managers, from the city manager to captains and lieutenants in the fire department, need to get a few things straight with respect to favoritism and some other "value" questions.

But then, this web site has long argued that the whole city administration needs a "value" makeover; a code of ethics probably would address issues like favoritism, misuse of city employees and misappropriation of public property which are raised by the anonymous memo.

Let's take, for example, the loyalty oath fiasco, generated by His Highness Himself, City Manager Larry Deetjen. We found it interesting that the city manager thinks new hire firemen should promise not to take a stand on a matter which affects their own livelihood, as a pre-condition of employment, but defends his own right to show up at a political rally involving important city issues using his on/off (public/private) citizen switch. Moreover, the particular stand which they may take is presumptively against the city's position. In fact, the city -- meaning the city commission -- has no position on the question of a BSO merger. What Deetjen was asking was that new hires not oppose him, not any position of the city which has legal force and effect. Mr. Deetjen sometimes forgets that "they" make policy for city government, not he.

Then, there is the Langlois case. The Langlois decision by the U.S. District Court in Miami could prove to be an embarrassing and costly mistake by the city, if it is upheld on appeal. Langlois is a rescue supervisor in the fire department suspended from duty on psychiatric grounds. He alleges, however, that the real reason for his suspension was his complaints about favoritism in the department. This happened over three years ago, so the favoritism issue has been festering for some time.

The city commission is scheduled to meet in executive session on 03/29/05 to decide whether the city should pursue an appeal in the case. The judge ordered that the city reinstate Langlois. She also ordered the city to pay Langlois his back pay and attorney's fees.

To get back to the question posed by the title of this essay, we cannot say for certain how far the merger idea was advanced by the city elections. The fact that it was a campaign issue aroused interest and crystallized some positions. However, when one takes into consideration the morale situation with the firefighters and rescue personnel, possible mismanagement of the fire services or worse, the costly pensions and salaries and the difficult negotiations every contract cycle, and other factors, the city commission may be more receptive to at least hearing out the BSO on a takeover. In this sense, one may conclude that merger won the election.

Still, it is far from happening. It would be a complicated deal and a tough sell to voters. One thing that may be a factor is that consolidation of fire and other municipal services county-wide will eventually be on the table anyway. Consolidation could be the most effective way to control the escalating costs of public safety in the future. It may be next year or it may be in 15 years. But in the end, the city may have no choice in the matter at all.

The best position for the city commission at this time is a open-mind to all possibilities. This might not lead to a merger of fire services, but it could rectify some of the problems in the department. The commission could well conclude that merger is the best plan, but is not feasible.

If the commission, city manager and fire chief want to have the best fire services operation possible then there should be some common ground with the rank-and-file. People will always find something to grumble about, but the level of hostility is troubling. A lot of it seems to stem from the idea that some fire service employees hold a privileged position not earned or deserved. That issue alone should be addressed by the managers and, if necessary, by the city commission.

The concern of citizens is that the bad feelings will continue to escalate to a point where they impact negatively on the core services. Everyone finds security in the belief that somebody will be there to help if and when the need arises.