Stockton Professional Firefighters · Local 456Post Office Box 69-2201 . Stockton, California 95269

(209) 941-4234 • FAX (209) 941-4253

June 17, 2010

VIA PDF

Arthur A. Hartinger555 12th Street, Suite 1500Oakland, California 94607

RE: IAFF Local 456 Response to City'sCounter-Proposal to Help SolveThe State of Emergency

Dear Arthur,

We are in receipt of your June 16, 2010 "reasonable offer." We thank you for submitting an offer in writing.We must politely decline your offer; however, we offer a few observations and questions based on thecontent of your letter. We would appreciate answers and responses at our next scheduled meeting onMonday, June 21, 2010.

First, based on your letter and the accompanying offer, we wish to congratulate the City of Stockton fromemerging from its "fiscal crisis." As you are we" aware, we were asked to meet with you to help addressthe City's asserted "fiscal crisis." At that time, we were told that the City had a budget gap "approaching 23million dollars" that needed to be bridged. After several discussions with yourself and City staff, both on-line and off-line, we were given a reduction target for fiscal year 2011 of approximately $5.9 million. Theoffer we submitted to you recognized the City's stated need by capturing over $5.7 million in savings forfiscal year 2011. The City has declined our offer and countered with the offer contained in your letter ofJune 16th that as best as we can calculate (because you failed to cost out your proposal) achievesapproximately just $1.6 million in savings for fiscal year 2011.

Needless to say, we are stunned, yet pleased, that the City's fortunes have changed so dramatically in amatter of weeks. After all, at the last City Council budget meeting, interim City Manager O'Rourke statedthat just over $11 million in concessions were needed to prevent the mass layoff of police officers, orconversely the dramatic reduction of fire and emergency medical services through the litigation strategy ofbreaking contracts due to a "fiscal emergency." We would like to note that our proposal cuts that gap inhalf, despite the fact that the cost for Local 456 represented employees is only approximately 25% of theGeneral Fund and that Local 456 represented employees have given up nearly $13 million in concessionsover the last two years (in great excess of a" other bargaining units and management employeescombined).

Affiliated with International Association of Fire Fighters· California Professional Firefighters· AFL-CiO • California Labor Federation ~

Your letter references our unwillingness to negotiate over staffing and "equipment closures." Yes, as wehave stated from our very first discussion with you, we are unwilling to allow you, Mr. O'Rourke or any otherCity staff member to compromise the safety of the public or our members. In your letter you state that theCity believes that "these measures can be implemented safely and reasonably, with a very significant costsavings." Well, we can agree that it will save the City money. However, after many meetings with you andother City staff and over the course of many weeks, you have failed to counter the scientific testing data(conducted by the U.S. Government) we presented you at our first meeting that clearly demonstrates thatStockton's staffing model is safer for residents, firefighters and is superior in protecting property.Moreover, as you know the staffing model in place in Stockton for decade's accords with that in municipalfire departments in Class 1 cities like Stockton. It is also publicly supported our Fire Chief.

It's tragic, but true, that this negotiating team has lost two brothers in a structure fire and nearly lost a thirdbut for our staffing levels. So, unless either you or Mr. O'Rourke has personal experience fighting fires withinsufficient manpower, or handling complex cardiac arrest cases or multiple trauma wounds in one location,we beg your forgiveness in not taking the City's word for it when it states that this scheme can be"implemented safely." Further, the City has clearly acknowledged and accepted our position of sacrificingpay in favor of protecting service levels as it has spent the promised wages of this union's members onother purposes in exchange for ensuring true public safety.

Yes, we have acknowledged that other agencies staff differently. However, your letter fails to point out thatwe have not agreed that other cities' staffing models are preferred. Your statement reminds us of thelesson our fathers taught us, "if your friends all jumped off the Brooklyn Bridge, would you?" Further, your"review" of other department's staffing models (which you have not presented to us) fails to take intoaccount other variables that impact response time and safety. Indeed, no reputable study has concludedthat any staffing model other than 4-person engine staffing is as efficient or safe as 3-person Companystaffing. (See, e.g., NFPA 1710 Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire SuppressionOperations, etc.)

You also state that the City of Stockton is not so "different" or "unusual" in determining the appropriatestaffing levels. We assume that you have conferred with the Fire Chief and have developed an analysis ofwhy Stockton is "ordinary" as compared to other major cities-especially those with high concentrations ofindustrial properties, hazardous materials, a port and a systemically high crime rate (which drives our callsfor service up). Please forward the analysis at your earliest convenience.

Your letter also brings up the issue of our work schedule and the amount of "time off," we receive. Wethank you for your purely subjective analysis of our work schedule, which we note fails to comment on the2920 hours of work regularly scheduled and required of suppression line firefighters. While we fail to seethe merit of your argument other than to inflame the debate, we have submitted a proposal relative to timeoff/vacation. Further, we are curious as to whether the issue of hours worked is being evaluated across allemployee classes. For example, we notice that Mr. O'Rourke receives a full time salary, yet is restricted toonly 980 hours of work. It seems to us like that represents a "tremendous" amount of time off. We wouldbe pleased to consider a proposal to reduce the workweek from 56 hours to 40 hours like all other Cityemployees.

Your letter also states that the "City Council is committed to achieving responsible fiscal sustainability."Your proposal, however, is silent on our offer to create a joint labor-management committee to explorerevenue opportunities. Further, despite the professional analysis of the City's fiscal practices by one of the

most respected management auditing firms in California, the City has not made a single commitment toreform some of its fiscal practices such as: excessive interfund transfers and UNDOCUMENTED LOANSFROM THE GENERAL FUND TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, which all but assure the City is lastin line in terms of loan repayments. That is to say if the public can ever determine the actual amountsowed to the General Fund. We will believe that there is true commitment to "responsible fiscalsustainability" when we see policies enacted at the top to truly achieve that goal.

We also wish to thank you for pointing out that your offer would give us pay increases while other unionshave agreed to forgo their raises. First, as you know, we've offered to defer our raises contractually due infiscal year 2011 that have already been deferred from prior years. Second, we remind you that this Council(as opposed to the popularly mentioned "previous Councils") approved over a 15% pay raise for policeofficers on the very night that they accepted our voluntary pay concessions in 2009. We are continuallyfrustrated by the deliberate unwillingness of the City and its representatives to acknowledge that practicallyevery Local 456 concession received by the City has been used to grant pay increases to other Cityemployees.

Finally, we wish to address the not so subtle threat at the end of your letter regarding "alternative means ofresolving this emergency." As we noted above, we believe that your offer is admission that no suchemergency exists (or that it miraculously disappeared). Additionally, given Stockton's horrible track recordwith litigation and fiim-flam governmental schemes, we are very concerned that you are driving the Citydown yet another risky path that will lead to nothing but budget-busting legal fees, division betweenemployees and management and a protracted public battle about the City's inability to manage its currentresources.

We would hope that prior to pursuing this path; you will inform the public of the true cost in terms of taxdollars that this course of action will bring. After all, our residents have been soaked with the costs oflosing legal battles driven by cowboy style governing: the Howard Jarvis lawsuit ($33 million), RivermarkTowers ($2 million) and the BIA ($200,000) lawsuit to name a few. We feel it is important to note that youare turning down $5.7 million to pursue this risky litigation strategy that if successful will achieve whatoutcome? You will make the citizens less safe.

Arthur, we are committed to coming to an agreement, although we are under no obligation to do so(especially based on your own offer that proves there is no fiscal emergency). If you want to discuss longerterm structural changes, we are happy to do so as our offer currently provides regarding healthcare costsand retirement benefits for prospective employees. Otherwise, you should at least actually provide costestimates for what you are proposing, as is customary without a special request from us.

Our offer of a contract extension in exchange for $5.7M in fiscal year 2011 remains open for acceptance bythe City.

Sincerely,

~~UDave MacedoPresident StocktonProfessional FirefightersIAFF Local 456