Post-Election, 2010
By Bill Coburn
This editorial is the opinion of Bill Coburn, publisher of Sierra Madre News Net and 15 year Sierra Madre resident. It is not intended to reflect the views of any other person or entity with whom I am associated.
Okay, it’s been a couple days. Frankly, I think what I posted on my blog more or less said it all: Yes, Yes and YES! Congratulations to our next Mayor, Joe Mosca, and to new council members Josh Moran and Nancy Walsh. The good people of Sierra Madre have spoken, and I think what they've said is: Enough is Enough!
Thirty-nine words pretty much covered it. But I’ve had people contacting me asking when I was going to put my take on the election up on the website. As I said, I thought I did. But one of the people in particular who contacted me, a long-time resident (for whom I have a great deal of respect) that no longer lives in town, e-mailed me that she was “eager to see your election report.” And the more I thought about it, I realized, if anybody can turn 39 words into 2,000, it’s me, and if that’s what people want, I’m okay with that. Besides, in a year and a half, and then again in three and a half, as the election year campaigns pick up, I may want something a little more detailed to refer back to than the thirty-nine words I’ve already posted.
Add to that the fact that my silence was not matched by the other guy in town that writes more than he should, and I decided to put a couple things down to say what I think about the election.
Obviously, I’m happy with the outcome, having endorsed the three candidates that will be seated on the council a week from this coming Tuesday night. Last Tuesday, when people asked me what I predicted the outcome would be, I told them frankly that I didn’t have a clue. I was concerned, in fact. While I don’t think I told anybody this specifically, I kind of thought that we were going to see Mosca, Crawford and Watts seated, though I did think it possible that I might be underestimating the power of Josh’s having grown up here in town.
But I had another underlying feeling that made me a little more hopeful. I’ve heard the last couple of elections that there’s a silent majority in town, folks who don’t necessarily get out and beat the drums, but a majority that includes people whose opinions are respected and who have some influence with their fellow residents. It was my feeling that those folks had been a little complacent the last couple elections, and I kind of had a feeling that the tone of this campaign had been such that these folks might just have been roused out of their complacency, and that we might just see their influence in the outcome. I think I mentioned this to a couple of people. But I think most people that I talked about it with, I expressed concern, because I really thought there was a good possibility that Maryann, Don and John were going to have a majority for the next two, if not four years, and I frankly thought we’d be better off if that didn’t happen. And even though I had the underlying hope I discussed earlier, I was afraid I’d jinx it by actually expecting it.
In 1974, Garry Trudeau and Doonesbury were at the height of their popularity. During this time frame, there were a series of cartoons in which blocks were being added to a wall in front of the White House, with the block wall eventually completely obscuring the White House. After Nixon resigned, if I remember correctly, the cartoon showed the White House, wall removed, with birds flying by, a rainbow, sun shining, a brand new day. I feel like that’s how many Sierra Madreans felt Wednesday, based on my conversations with people. And before the critics start posting, no, I’m not saying a City Council election was comparable to the President of the most powerful country in the world resigning, I’m saying the feelings some people had Wednesday reminded me of feelings people might have had in 1974, as represented in a comic strip. See the difference?
Why did the election go the way it went?
I think there were a few reasons. First of all, I think the winners deserved to win. I think there are a lot of people in town who have respect for Mosca, Moran and Walsh. Even though Joe pissed some people off in town right after he was elected, there ARE some people in town who have actually gotten over it. They recognize Joe for who he is, a hard working, good guy, who really likes this town and wants to give back. Josh grew up here, and has a lot of family, and that familiarity coupled with the support group that is his family and friends, had a substantial influence. He also has worked for the City, and volunteered for several years on commissions and committees. Nancy is not as well known, but she has been a volunteer in this town for a few years, sitting on and chairing the Senior Community Commission. And while I don’t know if she would have won the seat running individually, she was aligned with a slate that, it turns out, had the most support.
Secondly, I think that people didn’t like seeing people they perceive as good people, as givers, people who volunteer and work hard for the community, being maligned in the manner that they were. The derisive comments on Crawford’s blog were a little too much for some people. Calling Nancy “What’s her name”, turning Josh’s surname into moron instead of Moran, and the out and out verbal attacks on Joe, just weren’t smart moves when you’re trying to get people to support you. And I’m not saying that John Crawford did those things, for the most part it was his supporters that did it. As I said in one of my editorials, you’re judged by the company you keep, and I think (actually I know) people judged John by the things his supporters said. But it wasn’t just people judging John by the company he keeps. I think a lot of people didn’t want to align THEMSELVES with the people that were supporting John in that manner, they didn’t want people judging THEM as people that were willing to act in the manner that some (not all) of John’s supporters were acting.
Which brings me to a tactical mistake that I think was a major contributor to the Crawford/Alcorn/Watts slate losing the election. John should not have campaigned as a blog. I know that if he hadn’t, I wouldn’t have been able to editorialize in the way that I did. First of all, much of the opinion on his site, even in the articles he posts, are actually other people’s opinions, supplemented by his own. A lot of John’s articles cite other blogs, paragraphs at a time of his articles are pulled directly from other websites, blogs or print media, and then he throws in a few lines of why he thinks the people are right (or wrong). Secondly, John’s careful to use implication and conjecture as tools, and that leads to much of what he is criticized for. He doesn’t come out and attack people anywhere near as much as he is accused of doing it. He’ll frequently say things that will incite others to post things. He’s kind of like a shock jock, to a degree. He says things for a reaction, and his supporters are generally willing to oblige. And it was those posts by his supporters, sometimes in reaction to John’s articles, sometimes not, that I think really hurt John with voters.
Another thing that hurt the C/A/W camp was unsubstantiated allegations. To hear that Mosca was in the back pocket of the developers and just dancing at the ends of the strings of Sacramento’s marionettists, that Josh was a puppet of the real estate industry out to enrich his real estate industry family members, that Nancy was handpicked by John Buchanan to further his pro-development agenda, and that all three candidates, were, along with Buchanan, pro-development fiends, without anything anywhere to back it up, I think, left a sour taste in some folks mouth. It just didn’t ring true. All of the candidates made it quite clear that they were against four-story buildings downtown, yet we still kept hearing that that’s what we were going to get if we elected them into office.
I think that the Mayor’s letter asking residents to elect the C/A/W slate to help her stay the course and move forward her agenda, backfired. And while there were some who perceived it as problematic on its own merits, it became a bigger problem after the City Council meeting of March 23rd. There were many people who felt the Mayor bullied Joe to further her own political agenda at that meeting, and who felt that if this was the course that was going to be stayed, it might be better to set sail in another direction. I sent a letter to the editor of the Mountain Views News about that meeting, but never discussed that meeting on my site, I don’t think. So for those who didn’t read my letter, here’s my take: The Mayor has to walk a fine line between allowing people their right to free speech, and ensuring that meetings don’t get out of hand due to personal attacks. It’s a difficult task, and in this case, I think only one person really crossed that line. And I think she REALLY crossed that line. I think Mr. Mosca should have yielded the floor when asked to do so, and the Mayor was right to gavel him down and warn him that he might be removed if he didn’t respond to her requests for order. That said, I think that if I were Mr. Mosca, I’d have done the same thing he did, as I think the Mayor should have been more pro-active in limiting that speaker’s attack, and I think she also should have allowed Mosca to speak with the City Attorney to determine if he had the right to respond, even though Public Comment is generally a one way conversation. If I felt I had a legal right to respond to someone I felt was personally attacking me verbally, and that right was being taken from me, I’d have been vocal about it too.
But that’s just my take. Even though I think the Mayor was within her rights to gavel over Mr. Mosca and to threaten him with removal from the Chambers, there were many people who didn’t feel that way. And I think it’s highly ironic that after numerous calls on the Tattler and at City Council meetings by people that supported Crawford’s candidacy for more regular replays of the Council meetings on Channel 3, it was, to a degree, repeated replays of the Mayor’s actions that contributed to some folks choosing to vote against his slate. And I know that it happened, I’ve had people tell me that it changed their vote. I had one person, a senior, tell me that she would NEVER vote for anyone that Mayor MacGillivray told her she should vote for.
How did John Crawford get 1,000 votes? Well, actually, it’s probably not surprising. I was of the opinion that Crawford “won” the candidate forum sponsored by the Chamber. Why? Because for a lot of people, that was their first exposure to him, and the people who’d heard from his critics how awful he was were most likely favorably impressed when he came off as quite reasonable at that forum. And I think that many of the people that voted for him were people who’s homes he visited during the campaign, and who heard him say that he was responsible for the eminent domain being on the ballot, and who were told that thanks to him, there was an ordinance in place that was going to bring the Skilled Nursing Facility folks to justice for allowing their property to go downhill while it sits empty. Both of these are issues that resonated with folks in town, but many of these people had no idea what was happening on his blog. I think Crawford’s vote tally would have been significantly lower if more people perceived him as the blogger, and fewer as the guy who helped make SNF and ED issues in this campaign. Credit where credit is due, though, he was instrumental on both these issues.
I was glad to see that Pat Alcorn fared well, even though she didn’t win a seat on the Council. She conducted herself with class, was knowledgeable on the issues, and frankly, might have done even better had she not been part of a slate which I believe dragged her down. Of the non-winning candidates, she was behind only Don Watts, the incumbent, and by fewer than 150 votes. Incumbents generally have a distinct advantage due to name recognition, and Pat was right there with him. And I think she did a great job on that mailer we received days before the election. It would be nice to see something like that come out from sitting Council members a couple times a year, as Pat told me she planned to do if she had been elected.
Where do we go from here?
Well, I think Joe’s going to be mayor. I’m curious as to whether the Mayor will nominate him. It would be a good political move for her to say, since she will still have the gavel, that she recognizes the will of the people, that in the spirit of reconciliation, she congratulates him and the new council members on their win, and that in that spirit, she hereby nominates him. Some people with whom I’ve spoken about this just can’t see her doing that, saying they think it would be too much of a backpedal for her. I really don’t know. This would be a smart thing to do politically. She’d be perceived as doing the right thing, even if she actually isn’t doing the right thing because it’s the right thing (who knows her motivation but her?) But she’s a woman of convictions, and it will be interesting to see if she chooses to do the politically smart thing, or if she stands by her convictions. I personally would like to see John Buchanan have the opportunity to nominate his friend. But we’ll find that out in a couple weeks.
Crawford has, after a one day hiatus, brought the Tattler back, and has a “seriously, is there anything left to lose” attitude. He’s continuing to see things in his own unique way. For instance, his first day back, an article that said: “But when it came to the City Council, Sierra Madre voters soundly rejected the Tattler style - snarky, funny, eloquent, nasty - by giving the Tattler's author, John Crawford, the least votes of any major candidate.” generated this headline: “The Pasadena Star News Praises the Tattler.” Not how I think most people would have interpreted those words.
On election night, I heard one of the folks who will be sitting on the Council for the next four years telling someone that the Council’s job now is to bring Mayor MacGillivray back into the fold. In essence, this person said that rather than ostracize or criticize her, the Council needs to be inclusive, because if they can get her working WITH them, the council can only get even more accomplished. Of course, the other side of the coin on that is that if Ms. MacGillivray chooses not to work collaboratively with the other members of the Council when they have attempted to work with her, it will reflect poorly on her.
I’m going to go out on a limb and say that four years from now, we’re not going to see 4-story buildings on Sierra Madre Blvd., or Baldwin. There won’t be a Walmart where the Skilled Nursing Facility is, we won’t have a MacDonald’s or a Jack in the Box, and we won’t have a stoplight either, barring a tragic accident that makes the City (and its residents) look at things with a different perspective. In short, I don’t think that the catastrophes predicted to happen if Mosca, Moran and Walsh get elected are going to happen. I think Sierra Madre will be pretty much the same as it is now.
But I hope there’s one change, and it’s going to take a lot of effort from both sides, which frankly, I don’t see happening. But I’ll hope for it anyway. Let’s tone down the rhetoric. Let’s try to stick to the facts. Let’s try to treat each other like we’re ALL worthy of respect (even if you don’t think so, TRY). Let’s be a village.
While there’s a lot of talk about the Tattler and the fact that even after being more or less rebuked by the residents of this town it’s come back out swinging, I’m also a little disappointed in the Weekly. In my opinion, the Sierra Madre Weekly has, in its election coverage, taken some unnecessary potshots. I think some of their election news coverage read like Opinion pieces. News coverage should be fact based coverage, Opinion should be clearly marked as Editorial. It’s one thing if opinion is offered in a columnist’s column, an editorial (marked editorial), or an Op-ed commentary (marked Op-ed). But when it is written into what should be “Just the Facts” news coverage, you’re crossing a line. And much of what I read in the paper this week wasn’t categorized as Opinion or Editorial, and could easily have been perceived as being news reporting, yet it was full of opinion. And frankly, some of the opinions in this week’s paper, to my mind, lacked the civility and respect that the candidates (and the paper itself) have been calling for as we approached the election. So here’s hoping that the Weekly will swing its pendulum back to its pre-election news approach.
Now I know I’m going to take some hits from people who will say that they feel it’s hypocritical for me to call for toning down the rhetoric and treating people with more respect, when, they will say, I was one of the people that was smearing their candidate. All I can say is go back and read my editorials again. The harshest thing I said was that statements that were being made were inaccurate, and that two of the candidates had, in my opinion misled voters. I don’t consider that smearing. You may, but I don’t.
And if you do, you’re entitled to your opinion. But in this case, and I’m not saying I agree with you, your opinion is about something that you perceive to have happened in the past. It’s okay if we disagree, different people perceive things in different ways, that’s life. I’m hoping that, as we move forward, we can try to be a little nicer to each other, even as we disagree. I will try. Will you?
Okay, I was wrong. I can turn thirty-nine words into thirty-two hundred, not two thousand…
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Yes, Yes and YES!!
Congratulations to our next Mayor, Joe Mosca, and to new council members Josh Moran and Nancy Walsh. The good people of Sierra Madre have spoken, and I think what they've said is: Enough is Enough!
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Crawford Turns Back on Supporters, Leaves FD Out in the Cold
Editorial by Bill Coburn
This editorial is the opinion of Bill Coburn, publisher of Sierra Madre News Net and 15 year Sierra Madre resident. It is not intended to reflect the views of any other person or entity with whom I am associated.
In a move that is being seen by many as an attempt at damage control, John Crawford yesterday announced that he is considering eliminating the comments section of his blog. He also changed the fundraising statement on his blog, removing the exhortation to “Send this blog to City Council” and replacing it with “Send John Crawford to City Council.”
Crawford posted the following statement on his site: ”Bill Coburn pointed out some comments left on this site regarding certain members of our Fire Department. He was right to do so as they were wrong. With over 12,000 comments having been left on this site, I am sure other unfortunate statements can be found as well. Recently the Pasadena Star News published an editorial lamenting some of the awful statements that get left in their public comments section. As has the Washington Post. Both are now considering doing away with the function altogether. I have always taken a very libertarian position on commenting to The Tattler. I never got into this to be anybody's net nanny, and I have only removed posts for obscenity or trolling. On the other hand, I might now be in a position where I might have to shut commenting down altogether. If you have a personal axe to grind with somebody, that is fine. But please, start a blog of your own and do it there. “
This statement was posted in direct response to an editorial that I wrote which I posted on my site last week and which was published in the Mountain Views News in last week’s edition, in which I posted statements that had appeared on Crawford’s blog that attacked the Sierra Madre Fire Department and the men and women that volunteer to staff the department. This was the second editorial I had written in which I pointed out that Crawford was requesting that voters send his blog to the City Council, which, in my mind, made the entire blog, not just Crawford, part of the election. In the article, I noted that Crawford had failed to say one word to defend our volunteers, and I questioned whether the election of the Crawford, Watts, Alcorn slate might lead to the end of our ninety-year old fire department.
Now Mr. Crawford has taken the unusual step of distancing himself from his supporters. Notable for me in Mr. Crawford’s statement are two things. One, the bulk of the statement deflects all blame for the issue as being standard operating procedure on blogs, by stating that the Tattler is no different than the Pasadena Star News (who Crawford has frequently berated on his site in the past, but with whom he now apparently feels a certain kinship), and the Washington Post, which have both expressed concern about the level of discourse in their comment section. It’s interesting to me that Mr. Crawford has not in the past, to my knowledge, expressed concern about the level of conversation on his blog. But as the election draws near, it appears he is concerned enough that his association with the comments on his site might impact the number of votes he receives, that he is willing to state that he “may” need to remove the comments, essentially turning his back on the views of the people that have supported him thus far in the race.
Of greater concern to me is the almost complete failure by Crawford to address the Fire Dept. issue. He said I was right to point out the comments “as they were wrong.” That’s it.
No apology to our volunteers for the statements that he allowed on his blog. No apology for failing to respond in the department’s/volunteer’s defense. No mention of whether or not he supports our Department, or wants to outsource Fire Suppression, an issue which will be taken up by the new Council within weeks of their being seated. We are still left to wonder whether Mr. Crawford supports our Department or wishes to see it end, bringing with it hundreds of thousands of dollars (if not millions) in budget expenses so that we will have a “professional” fire department, rather than volunteers.
Candidates Nancy Walsh, Josh Moran and incumbent Council member Joe Mosca have all assured me that A) they support our Fire Dept. in its current model; B) they wish to see the Dept. continue to maintain and improve upon its current level of expertise and professionalism, C) they are in support of doing whatever is necessary to make sure the Fire Department has the necessary equipment to maintain the standard of care now enjoyed by Sierra Madre residents, and D) short of the release of some unanticipated report that the Department is not living up to the public safety needs of the residents of Sierra Madre, they are against outsourcing Fire Suppression.
That (among other things) is why I will be voting for them.
This editorial is the opinion of Bill Coburn, publisher of Sierra Madre News Net and 15 year Sierra Madre resident. It is not intended to reflect the views of any other person or entity with whom I am associated.
In a move that is being seen by many as an attempt at damage control, John Crawford yesterday announced that he is considering eliminating the comments section of his blog. He also changed the fundraising statement on his blog, removing the exhortation to “Send this blog to City Council” and replacing it with “Send John Crawford to City Council.”
Crawford posted the following statement on his site: ”Bill Coburn pointed out some comments left on this site regarding certain members of our Fire Department. He was right to do so as they were wrong. With over 12,000 comments having been left on this site, I am sure other unfortunate statements can be found as well. Recently the Pasadena Star News published an editorial lamenting some of the awful statements that get left in their public comments section. As has the Washington Post. Both are now considering doing away with the function altogether. I have always taken a very libertarian position on commenting to The Tattler. I never got into this to be anybody's net nanny, and I have only removed posts for obscenity or trolling. On the other hand, I might now be in a position where I might have to shut commenting down altogether. If you have a personal axe to grind with somebody, that is fine. But please, start a blog of your own and do it there. “
This statement was posted in direct response to an editorial that I wrote which I posted on my site last week and which was published in the Mountain Views News in last week’s edition, in which I posted statements that had appeared on Crawford’s blog that attacked the Sierra Madre Fire Department and the men and women that volunteer to staff the department. This was the second editorial I had written in which I pointed out that Crawford was requesting that voters send his blog to the City Council, which, in my mind, made the entire blog, not just Crawford, part of the election. In the article, I noted that Crawford had failed to say one word to defend our volunteers, and I questioned whether the election of the Crawford, Watts, Alcorn slate might lead to the end of our ninety-year old fire department.
Now Mr. Crawford has taken the unusual step of distancing himself from his supporters. Notable for me in Mr. Crawford’s statement are two things. One, the bulk of the statement deflects all blame for the issue as being standard operating procedure on blogs, by stating that the Tattler is no different than the Pasadena Star News (who Crawford has frequently berated on his site in the past, but with whom he now apparently feels a certain kinship), and the Washington Post, which have both expressed concern about the level of discourse in their comment section. It’s interesting to me that Mr. Crawford has not in the past, to my knowledge, expressed concern about the level of conversation on his blog. But as the election draws near, it appears he is concerned enough that his association with the comments on his site might impact the number of votes he receives, that he is willing to state that he “may” need to remove the comments, essentially turning his back on the views of the people that have supported him thus far in the race.
Of greater concern to me is the almost complete failure by Crawford to address the Fire Dept. issue. He said I was right to point out the comments “as they were wrong.” That’s it.
No apology to our volunteers for the statements that he allowed on his blog. No apology for failing to respond in the department’s/volunteer’s defense. No mention of whether or not he supports our Department, or wants to outsource Fire Suppression, an issue which will be taken up by the new Council within weeks of their being seated. We are still left to wonder whether Mr. Crawford supports our Department or wishes to see it end, bringing with it hundreds of thousands of dollars (if not millions) in budget expenses so that we will have a “professional” fire department, rather than volunteers.
Candidates Nancy Walsh, Josh Moran and incumbent Council member Joe Mosca have all assured me that A) they support our Fire Dept. in its current model; B) they wish to see the Dept. continue to maintain and improve upon its current level of expertise and professionalism, C) they are in support of doing whatever is necessary to make sure the Fire Department has the necessary equipment to maintain the standard of care now enjoyed by Sierra Madre residents, and D) short of the release of some unanticipated report that the Department is not living up to the public safety needs of the residents of Sierra Madre, they are against outsourcing Fire Suppression.
That (among other things) is why I will be voting for them.
Saturday, April 3, 2010
SMFD Volunteers – Heroes or Hosers? Where Does Your Candidate Stand?
This editorial is the opinion of Bill Coburn, publisher of Sierra Madre News Net and 15 year Sierra Madre resident. It is not intended to reflect the views of any other person or entity with whom I am associated.
In the days following the Santa Anita Fire in April and May of 2008, the grateful residents of this town made no secret of their gratitude to the heroes who stood along the fire lines and fought back the flames that were destroying much of the hillside behind our village, manning fronts along the fire line, protecting their neighbors, and preventing the loss of even a single home, though the flames came within striking distance at multiple locations. Home made signs sprung up, letters to the editor were written, and Sierra Madreans stood up at local public meetings to express their undying gratitude to the volunteers of the Sierra Madre Fire Department.
Now, just two years later, some members of the community seem to have forgotten that it was these firefighting heroes, along with fire departments from all over California, that saved this town from destruction. Apparently for some, “gratitude” doesn’t have the shelf life it once did.
A few nights ago, bloggers posted comments on Sierra Madre Tattler, the blog operated by City Council candidate John Crawford, calling the Department “the laughing stock of the state.” Naturally, as often happens, the Department’s leader was the lightning rod. One blogger stated that SMFD Chief “Steve Heydorf (sic), who is currently getting paid over $120,000 a year to be our "volunteer" fire Chief does nothing except either sit on his fat butt all day in the Development Services department, or drive around in the shiny, brand new, command vehicle doing his personal errands.” Another poster said the department is “…just an 'elite' club of self-important windbags now, with questionable ability to battle a wastebasket fire.” Apparently, their ability to fight fires has undergone a rapid decline, having gone from a successful defense against walls of flame racing down hillsides toward our homes, to, according to this poster, an inability to extinguish a few burning pieces of paper.
It wasn’t just the Fire Department that took the hits, nearly half of your non-firefighting neighbors were accused of wanting their neighbors’ homes to burn: “I've heard the DIRTS say before, that they wish a huge fire would burn down every house in the canyon. No wonder why they had no problem with Lowe/Heydorf (sic)/Bamberger/Burnett taking Fire Dept. vehicles out of the city for personal use. Who needs a Fire Department when you're waiting for the whole city to burn up in flames.” For the unaware, DIRTS is the term used on Crawford’s blog to describe opponents of Measure V, the controversial ordinance limiting downtown development which in 2007 eked out a victory of fewer than 100 votes out of 3,500 votes cast. I’m not sure how disagreeing with someone over the methods used to limit growth downtown translates to a desire to see our historic canyon burn, but apparently, if this poster is to be believed, that’s what “the dirts” want.
But most of the negativity was directed at the Dept. itself: “For a long, long time they protected the city with a pair of 1950's era Crown fire engines just fine. There were a couple of 2nd or 3rd hand support vehicles. Now they have several late model engines, a ladder truck, ambulances, water tankers, suburbans, Tahoe, etc. etc. etc. All that's missing is a helicopter but I have a hunch they have tried to figure out how to get one!...Why do we give these guys any toy they want, whenever they want???” “The people in charge of the fire department are DIRTS, just like everyone in city Hall. They don't have a problem wasting our money because they would love to see Sierra Madre go bankrupt… If you're wondering why they're able to get away with it, it's because their boss, the city manager, is a died in the wool dirt, just like them.” The logic of that statement escapes me. Does this person really think it’s Elaine Aguilar’s goal to drive the city bankrupt, which would, of course, leave her without a job? But I digress. “Considering the sums of money that have been and are being wasted on that club, I would support contracting out fire services as well. For a few hundred thousand dollars more a year, we can get professional fire fighters, that can actually save lives and property, instead of a bunch of pictures of a burned out building and a death certificate.” Ouch.
The men and women of the Sierra Madre Fire Department spend long hours training WITH NO PAY so that they will be prepared to, WITH NO PAY, get up in the middle of the night to, WITH NO PAY, leave the warmth of their homes and the loving arms of their family and WITH NO PAY rush to your home and WITH NO PAY save our pets, our possessions, our property or in some cases, our lives. And they do this for false alarms and non-emergencies, as well. Did I mention that they do this, without pay? According to Salary.com, the median salary for a firefighter in the U.S. is in excess of $40,000/yr., significantly more than the $0 paid to all but three Sierra Madre firefighters.
One would expect that a City Council candidate in a town that has traditionally taken great pride in its fire department, which is now more than ninety years old, would say a few words in support of these brave men and women, if only to safeguard the votes of the members of the department and the residents who appreciate and support the department. Yet Crawford remained silent, allowing his supporters to denigrate the firefighters without a single word in their defense. Should his silence be interpreted as tacit agreement with the folks who would so willingly dishonor our hometown heroes? And by extension, the other members of the Crawford/Alcorn/Watts slate, since they “have like beliefs and ideas?”
Ordinarily, I wouldn’t feel that a person is responsible for things that other people say. However, in this election, Candidate John Crawford has asked voters to “Send this blog to the City Council” in his request for donations to fund his campaign. As such, I think it’s fair to consider the content of the entire blog, and not just Mr. Crawford’s personal observations on the blog, when considering whether or not to vote for Mr. Crawford, thereby sending “this blog to the City Council.”
Since Mr. Crawford chose to remain silent in the face of this criticism of one of Sierra Madre’s most revered institutions, I can’t say if that silence is agreement with his supporters, but it makes me wonder - should this slate become the majority on the City Council, will the Department survive to celebrate a centennial? A thought I hope Sierra Madre voters will consider when they cast their votes on April 13th. After all, the Council was considering proposals to possibly outsource fire suppression, but it was delayed until after the election, and while I didn’t see the meeting, I’m told that it was at the suggestion of one of the members of the slate, Council Member Don Watts.
In full disclosure, I have a personal stake in this discussion. My brother-in-law, Battalion Chief Bob Burnett, has been on the Department nearly twenty-five years. I also have a brother that is a paramedic and firefighter in another department. So maybe I’m a little overly-sensitive to unwarranted criticism of the people who invest so much of their lives in protecting ours.
I thought that in closing, it might be beneficial to talk a little about the Department. Perhaps the people who were so willing to berate our VOLUNTEERS just don’t know enough about the department, and would not have taken it to task if they knew a little more about it. So here’s a little history, and a few facts about our department.
According to an article written by then Fire Dept. Chief Jim Heasley in the June 9th, 1949 edition of the Sierra Madre News, SMFD was started after a disastrous fire in 1919, in which a bakery burned and “the fire could not be controlled by the local untrained men without proper equipment. Only a hand hose cart was then in use.” Monrovia Fire Dept. was called in, but the local business owners felt that more and better fire protection was needed. At its next meeting, the Board of Trade (precursor to the Chamber of Commerce), appointed two men to investigate the costs of Sierra Madre obtaining a fire engine and other equipment. During a demonstration of an engine, a local boy was “badly crippled by having his leg broken when the high pressure hose escaped the hands of the amateur fire fighters. This proved more than ever the necessity of a trained fire fighting force.” Shortly thereafter, the Sierra Madre Volunteer Fire Department was organized. According to Heasley, “There were so many men who wanted to join the fire department that it was necessary to organize a “Firemen’s Club” made up of men of all trades and businesses of the City.” Today, ninety years later, that tradition continues, with the addition of women to the ranks, and, in 2007, paramedics.
A few facts about Sierra Madre’s Volunteer Fire Department:
The Department currently is fully staffed, with 54 volunteers, three paid personnel and 27 paramedics. The Fire Chief oversees the administrative functions, daily operations, and response capabilities of the Sierra Madre Fire Department. The three Battalion Chiefs oversee fire prevention, training, personnel, and EMS training and quality assurance, as well as rotating the on duty battalion chief responsibilities. The six Fire Captains oversee crew training, station maintenance and equipment, and first in district pre-plans.
The Department currently has an ISO rating of 4, on a scale of 1 through 10. Class 1 generally represents superior property fire protection, and Class 10 indicates that the area's fire-suppression program doesn't meet ISO's minimum criteria. In my opinion, a Class four rating is hardly in the category of a “laughing stock of the state.” This rating is developed according to ISO’s Fire Suppression Rating Schedule (FSRS). The schedule measures the major elements of a community's fire-suppression system. Ten percent of the overall grading is based on how well the fire department receives fire alarms and dispatches its fire-fighting resources, i.e., communication center, dispatch, etc. Fifty percent of the overall grading is based on the number of engine companies and the amount of water a community needs to fight a fire. ISO reviews the distribution of fire companies throughout the area and checks that the fire department tests its pumps regularly and inventories each engine company's nozzles, hoses, breathing apparatus, and other equipment. Forty percent of the grading is based on the community's water supply. This part of the survey focuses on whether the community has sufficient water supply for fire suppression beyond daily maximum consumption. ISO surveys all components of the water supply system, including pumps, storage, and filtration.
The Sierra Madre Fire Department has a 1989 Mack Type 1 Engine, soon to be replaced, and a 2000 E-ONE; a 2,800 gallon Water Tender; one Chief’s vehicle; one Command Vehicle; an Urban Search and Rescue (USAR) trailer; a Utility truck; a Brush Patrol Truck; and two Rescue Ambulances. It should be noted that contrary to the blogger’s impression that we “give these guys any toy they want, whenever they want,” our newest engine is ten years old. The Water Tender truck is nearly 35 years old. We are all aware of the explosion that has taken place in technology in the last thirty years, fire suppression technology, too, has changed dramatically since much of the equipment that Sierra Madre’s Fire Department uses was manufactured. Public safety should be a top priority for our City officials – THAT’S why we should give these guys new toys.
Thanks to a generous gift from the Rotary Club last year, the trucks are now outfitted with state of the art radio communication systems. Prior to Rotary’s gift, some of the engines were operating with outdated equipment that did not adhere to the Homeland Security communication standards established after 9/11. Thank you Rotary!
During 2009, the Department responded to 28 fire calls, 590 medical calls (about 480 of which were Advanced Life Support Calls) and 200 service calls. 2009 was the third consecutive year in which the Department responded to more than 800 calls. The Department responds to all first alarm brush responses in the San Gabriel Mountains above the City of Sierra Madre with the Cities of Arcadia, Monrovia, Pasadena, the County of Los Angeles, and the United States Forest Service. The Department also participates in the California State-wide Mutual Aid Program by providing resources for the State of California Office of Emergency Services with the OES Engine.
Property damage in 2009 was less than $160,000, with structure fires at $130,000, vehicle fires at about $24,000, and miscellaneous fires just under $2000. There were 4 major OES calls, including the Station Fire, which totaled about 2,700 man hours. Personnel costs for those responses were just under $100,000, but the Department received more than $215,000 in state reimbursement, so revenue from OES was nearly $120,000. Additionally, the Emergency Medical Service calls generated $285,000. Total revenue from the department was nearly $400,000. Additionally, the department received a FEMA grant of $178,000.
Members of the Department accrued more than 11,000 hours of training in 2009, with more than 7,300 of that being standard training, and 4,200 hours of Academy training (14 shift firefighters undergoing more than 300 hours of Academy training). The average number of training hours per month per firefighter was eighteen. The training undertaken by our Fire Dept. was about a 110% increase from five years ago.
Nearly twenty-five hundred years ago, Euripedes said that you can judge a man by the company he keeps. This timeless axiom holds true today. If the John Crawford supporters who were so quick to disparage the men and women of our fire department are indicative of the kind of company he keeps, I think we’d be better off if he wasn’t on our City Council. That’s why I will show my support of the Fire Department by voting for Mosca, Moran and Walsh, and I urge all Sierra Madre voters to do the same.
In the days following the Santa Anita Fire in April and May of 2008, the grateful residents of this town made no secret of their gratitude to the heroes who stood along the fire lines and fought back the flames that were destroying much of the hillside behind our village, manning fronts along the fire line, protecting their neighbors, and preventing the loss of even a single home, though the flames came within striking distance at multiple locations. Home made signs sprung up, letters to the editor were written, and Sierra Madreans stood up at local public meetings to express their undying gratitude to the volunteers of the Sierra Madre Fire Department.
Now, just two years later, some members of the community seem to have forgotten that it was these firefighting heroes, along with fire departments from all over California, that saved this town from destruction. Apparently for some, “gratitude” doesn’t have the shelf life it once did.
A few nights ago, bloggers posted comments on Sierra Madre Tattler, the blog operated by City Council candidate John Crawford, calling the Department “the laughing stock of the state.” Naturally, as often happens, the Department’s leader was the lightning rod. One blogger stated that SMFD Chief “Steve Heydorf (sic), who is currently getting paid over $120,000 a year to be our "volunteer" fire Chief does nothing except either sit on his fat butt all day in the Development Services department, or drive around in the shiny, brand new, command vehicle doing his personal errands.” Another poster said the department is “…just an 'elite' club of self-important windbags now, with questionable ability to battle a wastebasket fire.” Apparently, their ability to fight fires has undergone a rapid decline, having gone from a successful defense against walls of flame racing down hillsides toward our homes, to, according to this poster, an inability to extinguish a few burning pieces of paper.
It wasn’t just the Fire Department that took the hits, nearly half of your non-firefighting neighbors were accused of wanting their neighbors’ homes to burn: “I've heard the DIRTS say before, that they wish a huge fire would burn down every house in the canyon. No wonder why they had no problem with Lowe/Heydorf (sic)/Bamberger/Burnett taking Fire Dept. vehicles out of the city for personal use. Who needs a Fire Department when you're waiting for the whole city to burn up in flames.” For the unaware, DIRTS is the term used on Crawford’s blog to describe opponents of Measure V, the controversial ordinance limiting downtown development which in 2007 eked out a victory of fewer than 100 votes out of 3,500 votes cast. I’m not sure how disagreeing with someone over the methods used to limit growth downtown translates to a desire to see our historic canyon burn, but apparently, if this poster is to be believed, that’s what “the dirts” want.
But most of the negativity was directed at the Dept. itself: “For a long, long time they protected the city with a pair of 1950's era Crown fire engines just fine. There were a couple of 2nd or 3rd hand support vehicles. Now they have several late model engines, a ladder truck, ambulances, water tankers, suburbans, Tahoe, etc. etc. etc. All that's missing is a helicopter but I have a hunch they have tried to figure out how to get one!...Why do we give these guys any toy they want, whenever they want???” “The people in charge of the fire department are DIRTS, just like everyone in city Hall. They don't have a problem wasting our money because they would love to see Sierra Madre go bankrupt… If you're wondering why they're able to get away with it, it's because their boss, the city manager, is a died in the wool dirt, just like them.” The logic of that statement escapes me. Does this person really think it’s Elaine Aguilar’s goal to drive the city bankrupt, which would, of course, leave her without a job? But I digress. “Considering the sums of money that have been and are being wasted on that club, I would support contracting out fire services as well. For a few hundred thousand dollars more a year, we can get professional fire fighters, that can actually save lives and property, instead of a bunch of pictures of a burned out building and a death certificate.” Ouch.
The men and women of the Sierra Madre Fire Department spend long hours training WITH NO PAY so that they will be prepared to, WITH NO PAY, get up in the middle of the night to, WITH NO PAY, leave the warmth of their homes and the loving arms of their family and WITH NO PAY rush to your home and WITH NO PAY save our pets, our possessions, our property or in some cases, our lives. And they do this for false alarms and non-emergencies, as well. Did I mention that they do this, without pay? According to Salary.com, the median salary for a firefighter in the U.S. is in excess of $40,000/yr., significantly more than the $0 paid to all but three Sierra Madre firefighters.
One would expect that a City Council candidate in a town that has traditionally taken great pride in its fire department, which is now more than ninety years old, would say a few words in support of these brave men and women, if only to safeguard the votes of the members of the department and the residents who appreciate and support the department. Yet Crawford remained silent, allowing his supporters to denigrate the firefighters without a single word in their defense. Should his silence be interpreted as tacit agreement with the folks who would so willingly dishonor our hometown heroes? And by extension, the other members of the Crawford/Alcorn/Watts slate, since they “have like beliefs and ideas?”
Ordinarily, I wouldn’t feel that a person is responsible for things that other people say. However, in this election, Candidate John Crawford has asked voters to “Send this blog to the City Council” in his request for donations to fund his campaign. As such, I think it’s fair to consider the content of the entire blog, and not just Mr. Crawford’s personal observations on the blog, when considering whether or not to vote for Mr. Crawford, thereby sending “this blog to the City Council.”
Since Mr. Crawford chose to remain silent in the face of this criticism of one of Sierra Madre’s most revered institutions, I can’t say if that silence is agreement with his supporters, but it makes me wonder - should this slate become the majority on the City Council, will the Department survive to celebrate a centennial? A thought I hope Sierra Madre voters will consider when they cast their votes on April 13th. After all, the Council was considering proposals to possibly outsource fire suppression, but it was delayed until after the election, and while I didn’t see the meeting, I’m told that it was at the suggestion of one of the members of the slate, Council Member Don Watts.
In full disclosure, I have a personal stake in this discussion. My brother-in-law, Battalion Chief Bob Burnett, has been on the Department nearly twenty-five years. I also have a brother that is a paramedic and firefighter in another department. So maybe I’m a little overly-sensitive to unwarranted criticism of the people who invest so much of their lives in protecting ours.
I thought that in closing, it might be beneficial to talk a little about the Department. Perhaps the people who were so willing to berate our VOLUNTEERS just don’t know enough about the department, and would not have taken it to task if they knew a little more about it. So here’s a little history, and a few facts about our department.
According to an article written by then Fire Dept. Chief Jim Heasley in the June 9th, 1949 edition of the Sierra Madre News, SMFD was started after a disastrous fire in 1919, in which a bakery burned and “the fire could not be controlled by the local untrained men without proper equipment. Only a hand hose cart was then in use.” Monrovia Fire Dept. was called in, but the local business owners felt that more and better fire protection was needed. At its next meeting, the Board of Trade (precursor to the Chamber of Commerce), appointed two men to investigate the costs of Sierra Madre obtaining a fire engine and other equipment. During a demonstration of an engine, a local boy was “badly crippled by having his leg broken when the high pressure hose escaped the hands of the amateur fire fighters. This proved more than ever the necessity of a trained fire fighting force.” Shortly thereafter, the Sierra Madre Volunteer Fire Department was organized. According to Heasley, “There were so many men who wanted to join the fire department that it was necessary to organize a “Firemen’s Club” made up of men of all trades and businesses of the City.” Today, ninety years later, that tradition continues, with the addition of women to the ranks, and, in 2007, paramedics.
A few facts about Sierra Madre’s Volunteer Fire Department:
The Department currently is fully staffed, with 54 volunteers, three paid personnel and 27 paramedics. The Fire Chief oversees the administrative functions, daily operations, and response capabilities of the Sierra Madre Fire Department. The three Battalion Chiefs oversee fire prevention, training, personnel, and EMS training and quality assurance, as well as rotating the on duty battalion chief responsibilities. The six Fire Captains oversee crew training, station maintenance and equipment, and first in district pre-plans.
The Department currently has an ISO rating of 4, on a scale of 1 through 10. Class 1 generally represents superior property fire protection, and Class 10 indicates that the area's fire-suppression program doesn't meet ISO's minimum criteria. In my opinion, a Class four rating is hardly in the category of a “laughing stock of the state.” This rating is developed according to ISO’s Fire Suppression Rating Schedule (FSRS). The schedule measures the major elements of a community's fire-suppression system. Ten percent of the overall grading is based on how well the fire department receives fire alarms and dispatches its fire-fighting resources, i.e., communication center, dispatch, etc. Fifty percent of the overall grading is based on the number of engine companies and the amount of water a community needs to fight a fire. ISO reviews the distribution of fire companies throughout the area and checks that the fire department tests its pumps regularly and inventories each engine company's nozzles, hoses, breathing apparatus, and other equipment. Forty percent of the grading is based on the community's water supply. This part of the survey focuses on whether the community has sufficient water supply for fire suppression beyond daily maximum consumption. ISO surveys all components of the water supply system, including pumps, storage, and filtration.
The Sierra Madre Fire Department has a 1989 Mack Type 1 Engine, soon to be replaced, and a 2000 E-ONE; a 2,800 gallon Water Tender; one Chief’s vehicle; one Command Vehicle; an Urban Search and Rescue (USAR) trailer; a Utility truck; a Brush Patrol Truck; and two Rescue Ambulances. It should be noted that contrary to the blogger’s impression that we “give these guys any toy they want, whenever they want,” our newest engine is ten years old. The Water Tender truck is nearly 35 years old. We are all aware of the explosion that has taken place in technology in the last thirty years, fire suppression technology, too, has changed dramatically since much of the equipment that Sierra Madre’s Fire Department uses was manufactured. Public safety should be a top priority for our City officials – THAT’S why we should give these guys new toys.
Thanks to a generous gift from the Rotary Club last year, the trucks are now outfitted with state of the art radio communication systems. Prior to Rotary’s gift, some of the engines were operating with outdated equipment that did not adhere to the Homeland Security communication standards established after 9/11. Thank you Rotary!
During 2009, the Department responded to 28 fire calls, 590 medical calls (about 480 of which were Advanced Life Support Calls) and 200 service calls. 2009 was the third consecutive year in which the Department responded to more than 800 calls. The Department responds to all first alarm brush responses in the San Gabriel Mountains above the City of Sierra Madre with the Cities of Arcadia, Monrovia, Pasadena, the County of Los Angeles, and the United States Forest Service. The Department also participates in the California State-wide Mutual Aid Program by providing resources for the State of California Office of Emergency Services with the OES Engine.
Property damage in 2009 was less than $160,000, with structure fires at $130,000, vehicle fires at about $24,000, and miscellaneous fires just under $2000. There were 4 major OES calls, including the Station Fire, which totaled about 2,700 man hours. Personnel costs for those responses were just under $100,000, but the Department received more than $215,000 in state reimbursement, so revenue from OES was nearly $120,000. Additionally, the Emergency Medical Service calls generated $285,000. Total revenue from the department was nearly $400,000. Additionally, the department received a FEMA grant of $178,000.
Members of the Department accrued more than 11,000 hours of training in 2009, with more than 7,300 of that being standard training, and 4,200 hours of Academy training (14 shift firefighters undergoing more than 300 hours of Academy training). The average number of training hours per month per firefighter was eighteen. The training undertaken by our Fire Dept. was about a 110% increase from five years ago.
Nearly twenty-five hundred years ago, Euripedes said that you can judge a man by the company he keeps. This timeless axiom holds true today. If the John Crawford supporters who were so quick to disparage the men and women of our fire department are indicative of the kind of company he keeps, I think we’d be better off if he wasn’t on our City Council. That’s why I will show my support of the Fire Department by voting for Mosca, Moran and Walsh, and I urge all Sierra Madre voters to do the same.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
