Be advised:

LAST WEEK our city argued in court last week the our public safety services (police and fire) did not have a duty to rescue Mr. Raymond Zack (who did not know how to swim) when he was despondent and standing in 4 to 5 feet of extremely calm water at Crown Beach while his elderly mother stood on the shore begging for action.

TODAY the judge ruled for immunity of firefighters over duty. And the judge finds further that: ”under the circumstances presented there was no moral blame attendant to the conduct of responding officers and firefighters.”

I have been told that this ruling impacts all cities in the state of California, not just the City of Alameda.

I’m wondering why our fire and police are some of the highest paid in the SF Bay Area . . .    I’ve argued for years that because the fire procedures and protocols are so exceedingly substandard for the industry of firefighting (and I’ve shown this), that the fire staff cannot be held to any performance standards. Hell, our city has worked multiple times, year after year, to cover up fire failures . . .

City of Alameda: Villainous

Our city took a position in court yesterday that our public safety services did not have a duty to rescue Raymond Zack.  Our elected officials and city manager should be ashamed of themselves.

See the story on last night’s ABC news here; excellent reporting by Alan Wang.

Mr. Wang, however, was provided false information. He reported that our fire department did not have funding for water rescue training. To do that, Mr. Wang had to have believed what he was told, which means that disinformation had to have come from a source he believed to be credible. So who gave him the disinformation? Was it our city? Our fire department? The firefighter’s union, IAFF Local 689?

The City of Alameda funded water rescue training and re-certifications to be completed in 2009 (source document is here).

The City of Alameda budgeted for the AFD to perform 8 to 10 water rescues per year for 2009 -2012 (source document is here).

Every resident and visitor to the City of Alameda has a right to expect to be rescued by our public safety services.

Given the information in the source documents noted above: Without a doubt (it is incontrovertible that) we all—

Mr. Zack, his family, and all residents and visitors to the City of Alameda—

had a right to expect Mr. Zack to be rescued by our public safety services.

Our city is arguing that they had no duty to perform. How perverse. It is unconscionable that our city should argue this. And it is villainous . . .

City killing our urban forest, one tree at a time

Below are my recent emails to the city about the very real long-term damage to the street-trees in my neighborhood from not just careless but completely inimical tree pruning done by the contracted workforce hired by the city.  I cannot republish the city’s email responses because their emails contain the following:

“CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This transmittal is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this transmittal is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the transmittal to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.”

WHICH IS SO WRONG.  And for the record?  I have not heard back from anyone on city council or the city manager.  Pretty significant issue that one would think the Mayor, Vice Mayor, and other city council members would care about. Guess not.  (!)

Here are my emails to the city:

Date: November 7, 2012 7:57:36 AM PST

Subject: Re: flowering pears being destroyed by contracted tree trimmers/1000 block of Pacific 

From: Denise Lai

To: Matthew Naclerio <MNACLERI@ci.alameda.ca.us>

Cc: Todd Williams <TWilliams@ci.alameda.ca.us>, Alex Nguyen <ANguyen@ci.alameda.ca.us>, Gail Carlson <GCARLSON@ci.alameda.ca.us>, Jesse Barajas <JBarajas@ci.alameda.ca.us>, John Russo <JRusso@ci.alameda.ca.us>, Lisa Goldman <LGoldman@ci.alameda.ca.us>

Matthew,

First, I should not have to be “vigilant”.  Public Works should be allocating money to afford proper tree care—not something akin to hiring day laborers which is what this contractor provides!—and should be providing the human resources to oversee the work done.  Damage to our urban forest like this is long term, and cannot be fixed quickly. Public Works maintenance of our urban forest should not be causing the decline of the urban forest!

Second, this contractor is so cheap and unskilled that they cannot do a proper job unless 100% supervised, and probably not even then!  Firing them for breach of contract is the most effective thing to do here.  Surely the city can find enough money to pay for arborists that actually care about the trees they are pruning and the neighborhoods the trees embellish.  These guys yesterday were hack artists who couldn’t give a rat’s ass whether the fire blight was removed, spread, or the tree put at total risk from a second 30%+ removal of healthy branches within 4 months time.

Please, come by this morning and have a look at what was done.  I am working from home today and am happy to personally show you.

Nothing short of stopping this travesty dead in it’s tracks by rethinking the city’s tree care needs and altering course accordingly will be effective. If you continue to let these hack artists keep this contract, we are in for a steep increase in the rate of decline of our urban forest.

Why is the city not prioritizing this incredible and valuable resource our city owns that provides amazing value for all businesses and home values because it provides attraction and better quality of life?

Denise Lai

========================================

From: Denise Lai

To: Todd Williams <TWilliams@ci.alameda.ca.us>

CC: Matthew Naclerio <MNACLERI@ci.alameda.ca.us>

John Russo <JRusso@ci.alameda.ca.us>

Creation Date: 11/6 9:36 pm

Subject: flowering pears being destroyed by contracted tree trimmers/1000 block of Pacific

Hi Todd,

Thank you for being so responsive today, and for being so responsible. I appreciate your work and your efforts to do the best job here.

When I arrived home today around 2:30p, the tree trimmers were clear cutting the larger and lower branches of a flowering pear. They were using a chain saw to take off ALL the lower limbs, reducing a tree that has been deliberately over-pruned just a few months ago by the prior tree-trimmers to about 1/2 it’s original size earlier this year; the only part of the tree left is the top of the canopy!  For this same tree, they removed fire blight branches with their hands, simply ripping them off the tree, and left one batch of fire blight in the top of the tree, i.e., they were not being thorough, not removing the fire blight completely.  And they were not removing the fire blight safely without spreading it to healthy branches: they were using the chainsaw to cut clearly infected areas then to cut healthy branches off without cleaning the chainsaw between cuts.

The neighbor across the street said they spent a lot of time on a tree that he pointed to next to his house, that has also just been over-pruned a few months ago, and that tree is not a flowering pear!

The flowering pear across the street was pruned just before I arrived home, all the bright green healthy branches were on the street and being put into the chipper.  I’ve taken photos of that tree for you: the entire top of the tree is still full of fire blight!

This contractor needs to be fired for breach of contract, damage to our urban forest, and clear incompetence or choosing to fail to perform deliberately (whichever!).  The city NEEDS to allocate more money to tree trimming: the harm being done to our quality of life, our air quality, and our wild life habitat is unnecessary and unacceptable.

See photos below my signature here.  And please keep me informed about what can and will be done to ensure the fireblight is properly removed, treated, and healthy branches are retained.

Kindest regards,

Denise Lai

=====================================

From: Denise Lai

Subject: Re: Flower Pear Trees

Date: October 2, 2012 11:28:10 AM PDT

To: Matthew Naclerio <mnacleri@ci.alameda.ca.us>

Cc: “Bonta, Robert” <robbonta@comcast.net>, “DeHaan, Doug” <DDeHaan@ci.alameda.ca.us>, “Gilmore, Marie” <MGilmore@ci.alameda.ca.us>, “Johnson, Beverly” <BJOHNSON@ci.alameda.ca.us>, “Tam, Lena” <LTam@ci.alameda.ca.us>, “Barajas, Jesse” <JBarajas@ci.alameda.ca.us>, “Carlson, Gail” <GCARLSON@ci.alameda.ca.us>, “Goldman, Lisa” <LGoldman@ci.alameda.ca.us>, “Nguyen, Alex” <ANguyen@ci.alameda.ca.us>, “Russo, John” <JRusso@ci.alameda.ca.us>, “Williams, Todd” <TWilliams@ci.alameda.ca.us>

Hello Matthew,

Thank you for your email.  I did not know we had a certified arborist on staff. Perhaps something can be done to save these trees.  Although, at this point, some of them are beyond saving I think—they will be so deformed from pruning diseased branches off.

I have a question: there have been a number of times within the last 2 months, whole days in one case in which electric lines were involved, when Public Works, contracted tree trimmers, and AMP have been on Chapin Street and on Pacific Avenue dealing with Liquidambar branches that dropped shortly after the extreme pruning.  When out in the field, shouldn’t city employees be observing and reporting significant problems? How has this obvious (even to the untrained eye) and rapidly growing disease gone unnoticed or reported by staff?

Kindest regards,

Denise Lai

=====================================

>>> Denise Lai , 9/30/2012 4:23 PM >>>

Hello Mayor, Vice Mayor, City Council Members, City Manager, and Public Works Director,

Please be advised that the following is taking place on your watch:

1) harm to trees from over-pruning (suboptimal) of trees because your budget only allows for pruning every 5 years

2) every flower pear on 900 – 1100 blocks of Pacific Avenue (and beyond?) suddenly came down with fire blight within a month of the recent pruning that took place this summer.  The fire blight began with a single branch on each tree and has nearly taken over some trees in under 2 months.

3) Public Works is unable to be responsive in a timely manner that would remediate the disease and save these trees

Why? Because you have allowed our city contract with an arborist to lapse

Todd told me that the soonest an arborist could get out and treat these trees would be in mid-winter, after the leaves are dropped—which mean the soonest an arborist can actually treat these trees is springtime when they have leafed out again if any are still alive.  Todd, to his credit, said he’d try to schedule these trees first thing once the new contract with an arborist is approved, but that could be late October; he was skeptical that it would be in time, i.e., before the leaves fall or the disease progresses too far.

Please see the attached photograph of the tree—90% of the tree is diseased. This tree is not turning from the fall! Those are all diseased branches! Please note: these trees have been completely HEALTHY and without any disease whatsoever until the pruning took place this summer! Every flowering pear in my neighborhood, every single one of them, started getting this disease at the same time, immediately after the recent pruning. Clearly the contracted arborist did not clean their tools between trees!

WHAT is our neighborhood going to look like when these trees treated and pruned, or lost?!

This is completely unacceptable. The City is overspending on numerous projects whilst our urban forest declines right before our very eyes from substandard, deleterious (clearly the arborist this summer did NOT clean their tools between trees!), or absent tree care.

Our urban forest is valuable and irreplaceable!  WHY isn’t our city prioritizing it?!

WHAT CAN BE DONE TO SAVE THESE FLOWERING PEARS?  If we wait, we will lose them or if saved, they will be deformed from the extensive pruning.  These trees need to be treated (antibiotics) and pruned IMMEDIATELY.

I look forward to hearing from you as to whether you will be moved to protect this corner or our urban forest and hire someone immediately to take care of these trees. Or will be we force to watch them all die from mismanagement?

Kindest regards,

Denise Lai

Redundant and unnecessary

FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 2012 • The Alameda Sun

Redundant and unnecessary

Editor,

Charles Fasso’s op-ed (“Closing Fire Station No. 3,” Sept. 13) can only be politically motivated as it could not be further from the truth! There are no reports that contradict the 2009 ICMA report.

Moreover, the ICMA report based its findings on national fire industry standards: each fire station needs to provide a 1.5-mile radius of coverage.

What the heck does that mean for us exactly? It means that out of all of the fire stations we have in Alameda, Fire Station No. 3 is the only fire station that we do not need.

Why? Because every other fire station perfectly and slightly overlaps to provide service for the entire city. That’s right: the coverage provided by Fire Station No. 3 is redundant and unnecessary.

So why is our city leadership and management hell bent on spending millions on the redesign and expansion of the Fire Station No. 3 facility and staff and exacerbating the annual multi-million dollar overspend on overstaffing of fire services? One needs only look at the political donations made by the firefighters’ union, IAFF Local 689, to figure this one out: the local fire union has been averaging $50,000 in donations per election to local candidates and measures.

Our city’s citizen legislature is anything but.

— Denise Lai

Walker’s 3 Criteria

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker’s three criteria upon which the relationship between public workers and taxpayers should be evaluated, adapted for our city:

1. Equity in employment benefits and burdens between public and private workers
2. The preservation of core government services for all Alamedans
3. Linked to both these goals: the improvement of the City of Alameda’s economic competitiveness.

Like Scott Walker, our city government needs to stop hiding from our budget plight, begin managing our general fund properly and that means first and foremost a.) reduce fire overstaffing b.) reduce top-paid city worker salaries across the board, and c.) negotiate in earnest with our fire and police unions for real concessions (not the meaningless kind you can splash across pricey mailers for sounds bites).

If the city laid off the 15 excess/unnecessary fire captains, we’d save nearly $4M just in salaries/benefits alone.  That’d be an immediate solution to our short-tem budget woes, would be a first step toward optimizing fire services, and give us time to map out a responsible long-term budget. It’s a win-win. There is no good reason for not doing this; so why isn’t our city leadership and management considering this?!

C: Post mortem

Congratulations to all the Alamedans who read up on the facts and became informed voters. You took our city back for all Alameda residents!  And protected us from a financial debacle of tremendous proportions. And thank you to the Alameda Sun for having the stones to publish hard-hitting facts that know no political sides, for publishing the truths as the city documents state them. And to the Alameda Journal: you shoulda been agnostic to our politics; shame on you!

Now for the really hard work: get the city leadership and management to properly manage our general fund and prioritize we-the-residents in this fine city.  The multi-millions we would save from proper staffing levels and reduced salaries would easily restore our library and senior center staffing, pave our roads, fix our sidewalks, and start addressing some of the desirable capital improvements.

In looking at this recent election over the backdrop of past elections, I hate to think that this might be true, but is sure looks like two things:

1. Have the fire unions have been getting overpaid overstaffing in exchange for approximately $50,000 per election? Were they promised  much, much more with the passage of Measure C?  Multi-million dollar fire stations, training tower, computer center, and control of our city’s emergency operations center? All of which would further increase already over-staffed staffing levels! The fire unions paid $20,000 to ‘Citizens Preserving Alameda Committee for Measure C’ (source is here), walked the streets for C knocking on doors, and manned phone banks.

2. Did someone tell the understaffed and usually reticent police department to play ball politically?  Is this what it takes to get the city to provide proper police staffing levels to service our city safely? I don’t recall seeing donations from our police unions in past elections. They gave a whopping $28,000 to ’Citizens Preserving Alameda Committee for Measure C’ (source is here).

Yes, we have overpaid firefighters and police, but we also have some people in positions for which they are unqualified yet they are making the salaries/benefits of someone who is an out-performer/over-qualified.  And we have some city workers in top positions with questionable performances getting reviews that reward them.  And we have had under-performing fire services delivering us significant failures year after year primarily, IMO, due to a lack of performance (outcome) management tied to contemporary (fully updated) performance protocols and procedures. Our GOBs (general operating bulletins) continue to be substandard, incomplete, and inadequate, putting both the fire staff and all residents at unnecessary risk. Having staff unqualified for the position of chief doesn’t really help. Fire Chief D’Orazi seems affable, seems to know fire fighting stuff. But there’s zero in his CV that prepared him to be fire chief for a city of 80,000 residents. As I said, we have staff in some departments who don’t have the CVs for the position or the exorbitant pay. There are many ways for our city leadership and management to adjust staffing levels and salaries in order to properly allocate our money for better & higher uses that will improve our city’s ability to serve us.  Note to the city: laying off the janitor at our senior center is not one of them!

Let’s stay on it, Alameda. We’ve got November ahead of us coming up pretty soon here. Stay informed. Stay engaged. Manage up.

Vote NO on Measure C.

Republishing my opinion piece because that’s what I really want people to read; not the garbage dealing with the no/c shenanigans.  Also, if you missed Jeffrey Smith’s opinion on Measure A in the May 31 Alameda Sun, you really should read it; we can expect more of the exact same irresponsible spending patterns with any new tax revenue, particularly because Measure C has zero accountabilities built in:  MEASURE A EXPECTATIONS DON’T MEET REALITY

Vote NO on Measure C. Here’s why:

In 2009, the City tasked the ICMA (International City/County Management Association) with providing a professional assessment of Alameda’s fire service needs. Their report stated 75% of calls are medical and the Alameda Fire Department (AFD) should focus on medical responses and fire prevention.  ICMA advised, per industry standards, 78 personnel, two fire stations, and five captains are sufficient to retain response time and safety.

National firefighting industry standards call for one fire station for every 1.5 mile radius, and one ladder truck for every 2 mile radius. Alameda is 4 miles long; we need two stations and 1 ladder truck.

If our city did just three things—-reduce four fire stations to two, mothballed two of our three ladder trucks, and cut 15 of our 20 fire captains (who earn on average $217/K/year [$3.25M/year alone!])-—it would make Measure C’s relatively paltry $1.8m tax revenue per year irrelevant. 

Instead, the City has acted in opposition to that independent evaluation.Today, we have 92 station personnel, four open fire stations, 20 captains, and plans for six new facilities requiring additional staffing. The AFD’s overstaffing currently costs Alameda Citizens $4M+ annually. Measure C’s projected $11M cost for fire facilities will actually be doubled by the bond costs. We are being asked for $22M for fire facilities we don’t need.

According to the City’s Fiscal Sustainability Committee, actual City debt was almost $12M in 2009, despite the passing of the Measure P property tax in 2008.

In 2011, debt spiked 250% to $4.4M, and another 24% since then, to $5.1M, making actual debt today north of $15M. It was deceptive or shockingly uninformed of Vice Mayor Bonta to tell people that the City’s debt is decreasing each year and soon the City will be debt-free.

2011 city worker earnings skyrocketed $4.8M above 2010. 30% of fire and police earn $200K – $400K. 88% take home over $150K. Additionally, there are 66 retired workers drawing annual pensions over $100k.

Measure C does three things:

1) Suggests, but does not guarantee, city improvements (Carnegie Library, 50m pool, lighted fields)

2) Allocates 50% of the tax revenue to offload 90% of our annual city-vehicle costs from the General Fund, to offset continued overstaffing and exorbitant worker pay, and

3) Allocates the other 50% to pay for bonds to build fire stations we don’t need, to prioritize firefighting when only 25% of AFD calls are for fire responses. These costs will only continue to spike as we hire new staff .

Why are firefighters going house to house to campaign for Measure C? Why does the firefighters’ union pump nearly $50K each year into our local elections? Is it because they can afford to? Six fire staff earn over $240/K per year, 34 earn over $200K, and the rest mostly earn over $150K. Is it because the AFD’s high staff-to-call ratio makes it so easy?  Are firefighters campaigning for their own security or the security of the Citizens of Alameda?  The ICMA found the AFD lacked performance management and measurements. Despite our talented personnel, the AFD is responsible for a string of failures in recent years: they didn’t protect our public and environmental health from toxic and regulated substances (friable asbestos and crude oil), they didn’t  rescue Raymond Zack one year ago, and they have engaged in other behavior that has incurred several lawsuits against the City.

In the future, a well-written sales tax measure could be a great idea. But today, there is no justification to impose a 30-year sales tax to fund an excess of fire facilities.

Alameda needs fiscal responsibility focused on necessary services. We demand that the City stop wasting our hard-earned money and get to work for the Citizens of Alameda.

Get informed, read the facts (www.AlamedaNoOnC.com) and join me—June 5^th—vote NO on Measure C.

Speak Truth to Power

Written May 28, 2012 by Janet Gibson, Alameda resident & retired teacher

I feel that most people want to believe that firemen, as well as policemen, are “our friends”.   It is, therefore, quite alarming to hear a number of Alamedans express fear and concern when it comes to our local Fire Department.

When residents. . .  .

*  know about the callous act of our firefighters “not lifting a hand” while a despondent Raymond Zack waded to his drowning;

*  learn that the Fire Fighters Union has contributed almost $70,000 in the past several years to our City Council members;

*  observe Alameda Fire Fighters and their Union being the major supporters and contributors to the passage of Measure C:     assertively knocking at voter’s doors,  running telephone banks,  distributing campaign signs; sending $12,000 mailers

*  experience engine and ladder trucks with lights and blaring sirens driving past the homes of known opposition bloggers,     without an observable emergency response event;

.  .  .  .it is not hard to understand the intimidation being felt by a number of people.

As the June 5th Vote  nears, people who oppose Measure C feel particularly vulnerable.   Scores of “No on C” signs are being taken from the lawns of private homes.  One homeowner reports that four consecutive signs have been stolen from her yard.    Another neighbor expressed the fear that fire fighters might not be as diligent in responding to an emergency call, if they saw a “No Sign” in front of her home.

What a sad state of affairs. . for community members to lose confidence in their public servants!  The perception exists that our fire fighters’ powerful union has taken over City Hall.  The public is not against unions who bargain collectively for members.  The public is against the excessive use of that power. The public is not against our civil servants having good salaries and benefits.  They are against excessively high salaries/benefits and employees who work only for their own self-interest.

We must not be afraid to “Speak Truth to Power”.    VOTE NO on C   Inform yourself: www.AlamedaNoOnC.com

Janet Gibson

Letter.

Letter to local newspaper editors:

We are a small unaffiliated group of Alameda residents who wrote, signed, and sent a request for an investigation to California State Attorney General (AG) Kamala Harris. We are unrelated by campaigns or any politics but are united in a single purpose: we have a right to expect fire services to rescue and protect us and we have a right to expect our city management to ensure this.

It seems simple, yet our city has been failing us in this regard for years—we have been subjected to a series of extreme city-wide exposures to highly toxic and regulated substances (asbestos and crude oil) and now these failings have culminated in the death of Raymond Zack.

Why?  Moreover, what or whom is next?!

Our fire services have politicized the issue, and rather than take our complaints seriously, our mayor exacerbated the situation: without a recruitment process, she placed a retired captain unqualified to lead at the helm of our fire services of a city of 74,000 residents. This contradicts everything we know about how fire and public management skills, rank, ICS (Incident Command System), and recent experience matter when it comes to public safety services. We brought our concerns to fire and city management and leadership. When those proved unresponsive, we felt it was necessary for the safety of this community to escalate it and bring these issues to the attention of AG Harris.

Signed: Horst Breuer (former Economic Development Commission Chair), Greg de Haan, Adam Gillitt (2010 city council candidate), Denise Lai, Mark Linde, Karin Lucas (attorney, former city council member), Rosemary McNally,  Liz Williams.

thinks we’re a ship of fools.

Quick note to address the misinformation published in The Alameda Sun recently.

There is no group of local activists called Raising Hell for Good. There is no RHG acronym.  Raising Hell is merely my blog. D’oh.

Letter to the State AG: The group of people who wrote and signed a request for an investigation into the city corruption to CA AG Kamala Harris are a group of friends who have HAD IT and thought it appropriate to engage the state AG and expedite a letter thereto. The signers are unaffiliated with my blog; I  just happen to be one of the signers; and the letter was sent quite a while ago, not last week. Our primary issue is that we have a right as residents to expect our fire services to at least meet contemporary standards in the industry of firefighting and actually, oh, rescue us and protect us and our environment, and we gave proof that we have been receiving substandard fire response and performance in the City of Alameda repeatedly, year after year, that is correlated deaths in years past, recent extreme toxic pollution to individual, public, and environmental health, and culminating in the death of Mr. Zack. It’s gotten worse, not better. We are not safe, people have died, and we need help because we have repeatedly asked for help from fire management, city management, the county DA, the county grand jury, and all have been unresponsive.

Dom Weaver (local fire union president) wants you to think that all those who signed this letter are all DeHaan supporters. He’s trying to get you to believe that there’s a politically split faction at play here. That couldn’t be further from the truth. …