OKC Police & Fire needs

[iron76hd]

I've actually never seen a "frivolous lawsuit" and if one is filed, it won't survive a Motion to Dismiss which should come right away, be granted and no more lawsuit. If a Motion to Dismiss is filed and not granted, then the judge doesn't think the lawsuit is frivolous.

WOW. Lucky you. I have had the unfortunate luxury of reading in detail and discussing some of these lawsuits that attorney's admitted were a bunch of bull. You see, I had an attorney living with me. mmm for about 6 years. Although, she and her firm were very ethical, I have sat at many a dinner party with a slew that weren't.

OOOo, midtowner, yes i've seen your profession back stage. I've seen frivoulous lawsuits one after another. You guys charge quite alot of money to defend a "Motion to Dismiss". I've seen your unethical pratices that bog down our court systems with paperwork waiting for the "settlement"...

Don't waste your time. Tell that to an uniformed citizen who doesn't know anything. Come on now... Let's move on.

Then, there's FRCP Rule 11 and Oklahoma's rule which says the same thing. Lawyers filing frivolous suits can be sanctioned by the courts.

I got the rule. Tell me how many times and how much attorneys were sanctioned in the last 5 years.

They recommend about 200 more officers, but none of their methodlogy is explained on how they came up with that figure.

That link is just an overview. I wish they would have had you conduct the study, I think or I know you believe you could have gotten it right. I would ask you Patrick to get with your City Council Member and get the entire study to answer all of your questions.

[iron76hd]

Removed for personal attack.

[iron76hd]

Patrick.

Slide #15 Below average

Slide #16 Below average

Slide #14 Below average and only above one other city in the survey.

Slide #17 Above average in Property crimes per thousand people. Not only that but out of ten cities we were second.

Calls have risen obviously. Just know this. Read the numbers. Then just understand that there are fewer officers available to take those calls today than this city had 20 years ago. We had more officers available to take calls 20 years ago than we do today. Either way you say it doesn't matter, but it doesn't take a Doctor to figure that one out.

[iron76hd]

Just found out the PUSH POLLING IS BEING DONE BY THE CHAMBER!!!!!

No Unions!

[How to rock]

OK... Many of you have asked about the methodology of the Berkshire Staffing Study done for the Oklahoma City Police Department. I have been able to secure a PDF copy of the study (308 pages). It is featured at the bottom of the page at the following link:

Links & Documents

[FritterGirl]

Just found out the PUSH POLLING IS BEING DONE BY THE CHAMBER!!!!!

No Unions!

And push polling is being done by the unions! *Gasp*

[Midtowner]

APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY

A range of quantitative and qualitative analytic methods was used to conduct this study. Interviews and briefings were held with the assistant city manager, the police chief, sworn and civilian police department employees, and a representative of the city planning department. An interview was also held with the leader of the Fraternal Order of Police. Our analysis included an indepth (sic) review of performance data, budgets, and reports. A rnage of analytic tools was also used including conjoint analysis, linear programming, queuing analysis, and activity analysis. In addition, a civilianization assessment was completed to determine the functions that can be more effectively handled by civilian staff. Benchmarking data was also collected from a number of peer departments.

This is not a methodology section. This is an overview of the methodology section. It says nothing specific. The rest of the report is all conclusions and recommendations based upon methodology which basically consists of "yeah, we did some stuff."

It is as I suspected, the report is not all that compelling or scientifically done. It's impressive looking, but it's really a paper tiger.

[iron76hd]

This is not a methodology section. This is an overview of the methodology section. It says nothing specific. The rest of the report is all conclusions and recommendations based upon methodology which basically consists of "yeah, we did some stuff."

It is as I suspected, the report is not all that compelling or scientifically done. It's impressive looking, but it's really a paper tiger.

Read it and weep. I wish they would have consulted Midtowner. He knows the best methodology! We have plenty of officers!!! It's a paper tiger and thats it.

What methodology would you have used? What company would you have used? This is the city counsel, city managers, and mayors approved company and study. They chose from plenty of companies, but this is the one THEY wanted. You should run for city counsel and then you can do the study yourself.

[How to rock]

Midtowner, I don't know what to say. It seems you have a much better grasp of the topic then a company that has a very long track record of doing these kinds of assessments. Maybe as a taxpayer you could demand a better explanation from the Mayor and city counsel members who authorized the payment for this study with tax payer dollars.

The companies profile and client list is featured at the following link:
Berkshire Advisors Inc. General Management Consult

I may not always agree with the posts by iron76hd but I think he is right on this one. This is the complete study with NO edits. I regret that it does not answer your in depth analysis needs. Hopefully it will answer the questions of others on this site who have asked for the document. With all due respect to you sir, I think this is the best I will be able to do on this topic.

[Midtowner]

Read it and weep. I wish they would have consulted Midtowner. He knows the best methodology! We have plenty of officers!!! It's a paper tiger and thats it.

What methodology would you have used? What company would you have used? This is the city counsel, city managers, and mayors approved company and study. They chose from plenty of companies, but this is the one THEY wanted. You should run for city counsel and then you can do the study yourself.

Well, that's just the problem. When I look at a study, the first thing I look at is the methodology. I expect it to be detailed and explain *everything* because a study is only as good as its methodology. Without that section, there's no way to distinguish between junk science and real science.

Skipping around through the report, I thought that maybe it'd explain item by item how conclusions were reached. But no... every section is basically a conclusions and recommendations section. Very disappointing.

I don't know the city council's motivation for choosing this group or what they requested. Maybe they wanted something like this? It's hard to say. What I can say is that while the report gives plenty of recommendations and all of them seem decent at first glance, without adequate benchmarks and data and analysis, we're talking about a subjective analysis which is not scientific.

[betts]

I was looking for something else and happened upon a pie chart that showed what portion each activity of the fire department comprised of the whole. Almost 50 percent of activity is related to medical and related calls. So, it seems logical to give more of the resposibility for them back to ambulance services, which would solve the manpower shortage problem incredibly quickly. A significant number of ambulance calls are either for nonemergent conditions, or the situation is hopeless. If people aren't happy with ambulance service they can then put pressure on the city to hire more personnel. Firemen can be called as backup if needed, or can respond to situations when it is known that multiple people will be needed, such as multiple car MVAs and the like. Seems like a fairly simple concept.

[Hawk405359]

I was looking for something else and happened upon a pie chart that showed what portion each activity of the fire department comprised of the whole. Almost 50 percent of activity is related to medical and related calls. So, it seems logical to give more of the resposibility for them back to ambulance services, which would solve the manpower shortage problem incredibly quickly. A significant number of ambulance calls are either for nonemergent conditions, or the situation is hopeless. If people aren't happy with ambulance service they can then put pressure on the city to hire more personnel. Firemen can be called as backup if needed, or can respond to situations when it is known that multiple people will be needed, such as multiple car MVAs and the like. Seems like a fairly simple concept.

The problem is that ambulances aren't always equipped for everything, and people who call 911 don't necessarily have all the information, or may not be capable of relaying it. Something that might seem like it wouldn't need fire backup may end up needing it, and can a person really afford the wait if an ambulance has to call in the fire department because someone needs to be extricated from somewhere?

[betts]

The problem is that ambulances aren't always equipped for everything, and people who call 911 don't necessarily have all the information, or may not be capable of relaying it. Something that might seem like it wouldn't need fire backup may end up needing it, and can a person really afford the wait if an ambulance has to call in the fire department because someone needs to be extricated from somewhere?

I understand what you're saying, but statistically, how many times is that actually the case? How many times does a)an ambulance respond to a call and not have the appropriate equipment or personnel to handle a call and b) that person has a problem which he or she will NOT survive without that equipment and personnel, and survive more than the ride to the hospital (i.e. get out of the hospital in reasonably good health)?

So, just as we would undoubtedly decrease crime significantly and save lives if we had one policeman per person, we would also probably save a few lives if we had more firemen as well. We have to choose a distinct number of both, and that number is based on what the city thinks it needs and can afford. We cannot afford to save everyone's life, either by protecting them from crime, or being there when they have a life-threatening event. So, it's an imperfect world. We have to choose a number that saves a statistically reasonable number of people. What I am suggesting is that, perhaps, we are asking our fire personnel to save a statistically unreasonable number of people, or, by increasing personnel, we wouldn't really save that many more. Perhaps the solution is less work, not more personnel.

[Hawk405359]

I'm not aware of everything EMT's have. I'd say the answer to that first question would be "anytime someone needs to be extricated from a car." I don't think EMT's have the training and equipment to do that, and if a person is trapped in a car like that it could be a matter of minutes.

I can't say I have any statistics, but frankly I don't think there's even a way to get those statistics (at least not for the second part) without omniscience.

I can understand what you're saying, I just don't think that's a part of city service we need to skimp on.

[usmbubba]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't FD manning based on fighting fires??? If you stopped them from making EMT calls, could you really cut personnel without significantly increasing response time for fires???

[betts]

Hawk, it depends. If we indeed have all the money in the world, then yes, I agree with you. Since it seems we do not, then perhaps we have to look at what we DO need. I agree. Extricating people from cars probably needs more technology than our ambulance drivers have on their vehicles, although I don't know that for sure. But, how many people annually are extracted from their vehicles? How often can you do it so quickly that it saves a life that would otherwise have been lost, versus someone being trapped who will survive as long as they're retrieved in a reasonable period of time? I suspect that data does indeed exist, although I'm not sure how one would obtain it. I suspect we could also probably somehow find out how many people are transported to the hospital for problems that are truly nonemergent. I know it happens with reasonable frequency. Those people don't really even need ambulance personnel, much less firemen too.

I can say, "I just don't think that's a part of city services we need to skimp on" as well, but truly, we always have to make choices. As I said, we never can offer perfect services. It's always a trade off between money and what we can do without, both in life and in government. You all are asking for more personnel, and the city is saying we cannot afford it. So, I say, go back to the city and say, "OK. These are the services we will no longer be able to provide, based on the number of personnel we have." Then, let the city decide how important they are. Personally, I'm willing to accept the fact that, if I have an emergency, I only get ambulance personel at my house, and not firemen as well. The chances of me having a medical event from which I can recover fully, and which would require a response time of less than ambulance personnel can provide, is small, and I'm willing to take that risk. For many emergencies, I'd rather people not arrive too soon (thinking of having DNR tattooed on my chest, just in case! I'm using quick reply, so I can't put a smiley in there.).

So, perhaps the argument is not just that the city isn't willing to hire enough people, but also that firemen are not willing to cut services, despite the fact that there may not be data supporting acturarily, the efficacy of those services. Then my question is: Why? Is is truly altruism, or is there a self-serving part of the equation, either on the part of personnel or the union? Or is it a chief who doesn't have the stature to stand up to the city and tell them what they're going to get for their money? I'mnot sure it's black and white, like it's being made out to be here.

[lump9816]

Betts, your solution wouldn't solve a thing. And actually medical calls are more like 80% of what fire responds on. Refer to my earlier posts. Every station has so many rigs, and all of those rigs require a minimum number of personnel. This is required by contract, NFPA standards, etc. Your fire department is as of today, operating at barely above that number. If they just stopped responding to medical calls, you'd still have the same amount of people because that number is mandated. They would just be responding to fewer calls.

[Hawk405359]

The number of extrications would probably be easy. The number of people taken non-emergency? Piece of cake. Check with the fire department and EMSA, I'm betting they could figure it out.

How would we even begin to measure whether a person's health would not deteriorate if left trapped in a car vs. getting them out as soon as possible? You're asking people to make predictions with the lives of others based off nothing. I don't think that's data that could be collected or that we could even begin to figure out outside of checking every single car extrication and evaluating the patient's condition after the fact, and that's not something you can do on the fly.

I'm not suggesting that we should give the Fire Department assault helicopters and Camaros. A city does have to make budgeting choices, but there is a minimum that they have to provide, and medical calls are in that minimum. If an EMT beats them to the scene and they figure out that fire isn't needed, they can cancel them, but that's not a service that should be considered for being cut. If we cut everything else, we should keep the city's responsibility to try to keep its citizens alive with their tax dollars.

[betts]

But, if most of your work is medical, then perhaps we have too many stations? Or too many rigs? Or are they both mandated as well? Is it a per capita requirement? If so, who makes the requirement? Is there a national or state rule about reponse times? Actually, I'm simply curious.

But, hawk, there are other kinds of "keeping citizens alive". There are immunizations. There are medical visits. There are programs to keep people physically fit. There is the police department. Again, without unlimited money, no one gets everything they want. We cannot create a utopia, because money is finite. For every person we hire, we cannot hire someone else. Maybe that's a social worker who helps prevent child abuse. Is it less important to prevent child abuse than to get someone out of a car in which they're trapped? There are no easy answers here, including the ones you all are offering.

[Hawk405359]

But, hawk, there are other kinds of "keeping citizens alive". There are immunizations. There are medical visits. There are programs to keep people physically fit. There is the police department. Again, without unlimited money, no one gets everything they want. We cannot create a utopia, because money is finite. For every person we hire, we cannot hire someone else. Maybe that's a social worker who helps prevent child abuse. Is it less important to prevent child abuse than to get someone out of a car in which they're trapped? There are no easy answers here, including the ones you all are offering.

These aren't all mutually exclusive, or even terribly relevant. A lot of immunizations and medical visits are handled mostly by the private sector, for example.

Second, we're not looking at a fund that can only be used for life-saving measures, we're looking at a fund for all city services. My argument is that there are a certain number of services that are top priority, services we should not cut if we have anything else. Emergency services are one them. It's only that difficult if you obscure the matter in the way you are we shouldn't be pitting emergency services vs. medical services, we should be weighting it against everything the city provides, and not equally, the cut to emergency services should come only after all other cuts to non-emergency services are made.

Money is finite, no one is arguing that, but your solution doesn't solve it and it's unreasonable in its expectations and justifications. It'd make just as much sense to say we shouldn't dispatch an ambulance if someone has been shot, on the chance that his wounds aren't severe.

As for what to cut, I think I'd be better suited to address that if I looked at the entire city budget vs. just trying to pick out a random part of emergency services that I don't think is necessary. I'm betting there's a lot of other things that could be done before we considered cutting out fire calls. We don't need to delve into the realm of the obtuse and completely hypothetical to consider that.

[lump9816]

Not trying to change the course of this thread, but why don't we consider what the city is spending money on. For example, two days ago I got to tour the newly remodeled Ford Center. Not the part the common ticket holder will have access to, that part hasn't changed it's still the same. Oh, I forgot they can still enjoy new scoreboard and it's awsome. Unless you are one of the people who can afford to sit in those new seats in the lower sections, you won't have access to the newly remodeled areas. But hey, Clay Bennett, Chesapeake, Devon and Midfirst Bank all got new private bars to enjoy. Unless you sit in those new seats you won't have access to the new, very nice clubs and restaraunts we all paid for. Point is we ALL paid for something that will benefit a limited number of people. To get back on topic, there isn't anymore fat to trim. ALL city departments have been cut to the bone. Every one of them. The only reason police and fire unions are making noise is that out of the 3 unions representing the city's employees, they weild the most power. AFSCME is pretty timid.

[Mikemarsh51]

Betts, as I previously explained in a post directed to you I told you the City Council hires a Medical Director who writes the protocols about how responses are made. I hope you never get to enjoy the long wait for an ambulance. It is not the least bit uncommon for us to wait 10 minutes for an ambulance after we arrive on scene. This EMS system could not function without fire Als/Bls services.

[betts]

Mike, I'm hoping the ambulance NEVER arrives. You all get to feel noble about saving lives, but all you do is transport the person you've saved to the ER. How many of the people you've "saved" spend three weeks in the ICU, then get to go to a nursing home with a G-tube and a trach to enjoy the rest of their days? It's amazing how a society based on Christianity views death as a complete failure. Again, it's not that I'm not on your side. However, when there are problems, I was raised to look for multiple solutions, not just one, especially if one solution doesn't seem to be panning out. So, again, were I the fire chief, I'd go to the Medical Director and explain that we don't have the personnel to respond in the manner he or she's suggesting, and I tell him/her to take it up with the City Council if s/he's not satisfied. Maybe the only answer isn't simply bodies, but rather, changing job descriptions and duties would ease some of the strain. Maybe each station needs fewer trucks, which would require fewer bodies to man them. Just throwing out ideas, as perhaps there are multiple solutions that won't significantly compromise public safety.

And lump, again, I voted to spend my penny for the Ford Center, despite the fact that I'm not going to the private bars either. My reward is the fact that I get to watch professional basketball 41 days a year live if I choose, and another 41 on television. I have a team to support. I knew beforehand that I wouldn't personally get to appreciate every improvement. I voted to get a team, not to get a lounge. As I've said, if I get the opportunity, I'm also happy to pay a little more to help out the police and fire department. I consider them completely different issues. There are many ways to improve quality of life. I don't remember the ballot giving me the choice of spending money on the Ford Center or our police and fire departments.

[tehvipir]

Look if you take the fire paramedics away from running medical calls more people will be dieing. do you understand that the EMS system in OKC is top 3 for cardiac saves. that means that if your hear stops there are only 2 cities in the NATION that you have a better chance of coming out alve. sure somepeople end in nursing homes but you also got to count in the people who are seniors who dont want DNR who choose to have EVERYTHING done to save thier lives so you cant blame EMS. they also have a good number who WALK out of the hospital. EARLY tx is the key to saving lives and fire most of the time beats EMSA. Just because EMSA does not take a person lights and sirens to the hospital does not mean they are not an emergent pt.

Have you not read the reports about how fat oklahoma is. how often do you think EMSA would NOT need fire for lifting? have you seen some of the people on EMSA? some of them dont wiegh over 120lbs and same with their partners. why should they have to wait for fire to show up AFTER EMSA arrives on scene and has to call fire to help?

Do you also realize that during a normal day EMSA only has approx 6-9 ambulance ready for a call and at other times they dont have any and the pt has to wait until a crew gets done at teh hopsital before they can send someone to the 911 call. but fire still responds. if if their engine is out they send a brush pumper of ladder but they get some kind of first aid in a timely manner.

There is a number for extrication. its called the golden hour. and that is time from the accident, to the call center, to the units, to the scene, removing the pt, transporting to the hospital, hopsital assessing them and then getting them into surgery. very often that hour is being pushed.

Having the fd with a paramedic on scene helps EMSA becuase they can apply the same treatments and thus all the lifesaving treatment isnt just on 1 person, they have help. sure EMSA has a partner but most of them cant do more than just placing oxygen on the person.

Fire has a list of chores they do EVERYDAy, from waxing the floors every week, to cleaning the kitchen top to bottom, to cleaning and detailing the fire trucks and tools, to mowing the yard, to going DOOR TO DOOR making sure everyone has a working smoke detector and if not GIVING and installing the smoke detector at NO CHARGE. what about going to schools and making sure YOUR kids know what to do in a fire at home and teaching them not to burn or teaching the citizens CPR so that when their friends or family heart stops they can provide CPR and give them a chance of surviving. Some of you really have no clue what the FD does behind the scene to help the citizens. you only see them with their lights on.

what about the ice storms they HAVE to go to work in and run around from call to call when your job chooses NOT to open for the day or week leaving you at home. sure it sucks cause you might not get paid but you are not risking your lives driving on the roads or walking on the ice or being on the interstate when it s skating rink.

If EMSA arrives on scene before fire and they DONT need help from fire they do cancelle fire. Once again the staffing is so guys have take days off that they have scheduled for sometimes months to be with family. thats where the fire department is hurting. they are short now and what happens when people retire, they will be really short and might have to close stations, but i am sure that if your house caught on fire and it took a long time before the fd got on scene and you sat outside watching the fire move from the garage to the living room to the kitchen through the roof and become completely engulfed in flames and loose everything, only to find out that the fire engine that would have been there in under 3 min was closed because of staffin youwill change your tone and relaize the mistake you made by not supporting them.
Why do you people think that CITY leaders who are civilians know more than the firefighters who continuosly go to schools and learn new practices and are beating the streets who have seen the department grow from 20,000 calls to the nearly 80,000 calls they are at now? Why dont we listen the the firefighters, they MIGHT know just what they are talking about more than the city council who sit behind the desk and make decisions on what THEY think is best instead of asking the people them selves what can be done to help them serve the CITIZENS.

Stop by a fire station and sit down and have coffee and talk with them. they will be more than glad to show you a round, take your kids. the fire station si the citizens station and are welcome to stop by. do rideouts with them. ask them what they think they need, ask them how many of them had to cancelle their plans because of staffing and ask what kind of burden that put on the family.

All i am saying is maybe because this "recession proof" city is now feeling it maybe we should wait on maps until the economy builds back up. if we are too broke to protect our own how can we support a park or tearing downa building just to rebuild it? lets make sure we are safe in our homes at night knowing we are being protected now and wait and approve maps 3 later.

[andy157]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't FD manning based on fighting fires??? If you stopped them from making EMT calls, could you really cut personnel without significantly increasing response time for fires???

You do not need to be corrected, because you are correct. Every piece of Firefighting apparatus has a minimum staffing requirment. The Fire Department could discontinue responding to EMS calls entirely if thats what the Citizens desire. However, that would not change the number of Firefighters required to be on duty 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year.

The City does not want to put Fire Engines out of service, and they don't want to close Fire Stations. However they would like to reduce the number of Firefighters down to the absolute minimum staffing requirments.

To reduce the number of Firefighters down to the absolute minimum is all fine and good, that is of course until you get 10 or 15 injured Firefighters, which then would cause the closing of 3 or 4 Fire Stations. Minimum staffing works great for the City, and saves the City a bunch of money, as long as the Department remains 100% injury free. Keep in mind, minimum staffing denies Firefighters the opportunity to utilize the leave time benefits the City has agreed to provide them, and thats the problem.