Madera County Grand Jury
• 2012-2013
• Agency Response
Madera County Fire Department In Cooperation with GAL Fire*
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 12 findings
F1
The Grand Jury found that the PCFs are essential to the overall fire services to the county. I whole-heartedly agree with the finding. Not only are they essential, they are a tie to the community that paid staff alone cannot meet. Many of the paid staff of the Madera County Fire Dept. are residents of their communities and have lived here most of their lives, but often we have paid staff who are new to the area or covering from another Unit due to the fire activity that occurs throughout the state. Since Madera County Fire must rely on the Amador program to staff several areas within the County, that allows for people outside the area to respond to the needs of the communities and we are truly grateful for what the Volunteer/PCF's bring to our combination fire department of paid and volunteer staff.
No recommendations for this finding
F2
The Grand Jury found that the Board of Supervisors is not overseeing the on-going application of ordinances and resolutions already in effect pertaining to the Madera County Fire Department. I would disagree since there are policies and ordinances that are in effect, but the statement requires a response from the Board of Supervisors and not the fire department.
No recommendations for this finding
F3
The Grand Jury found that the Madera County Fire Chief is not following the policies set forth in Resolution No. 88-187 and other directives and ordinances adopted by the board. This Finding is far too vague and does not contain specifics as to the policies, directives and ordinances that are NOT being followed. In order for me to be able to make an informative response, I would ask the Grand Jury to list the specific and verifiable violations that have been committed so that I may be afforded the opportunity to respond appropriately.
No recommendations for this finding
F4
The Grand Jury found that the new Policy and Procedures Manual being prepared by CAL FIRE has not yet been vetted by PCFs. I disagree with the finding. First point is that the document is being prepared by Madera County Fire. The fact that CAL FIRE personnel are Madera County Fire Department representatives does not negate the fact that we are Madera County Fire. The notion that CAL FIRE is doing anything that would not be representative of Madera County Fire is an attempt to continue the derisive discussions by people that are uneducated to the mission and vision of a Cooperative Fire Protection Agreement. The Grand Jury stated earlier that CAL FIRE has been the Madera County Fire Dept. since the early 1920's and that fact means that there is not a person in county government or the current fire dept, paid or volunteer, that remembers Madera County Fire without CAL FIRE. It is an insult to CAL FIRE and Madera County firefighters to insist that this fire department is anything other than simply Madera County Fire. 2012-2013 Grand Jury Report Fire Dept response Secondly, the draft document was made available to the respective representatives from each PCF company on several occasions and only two PCF's chose to make comments. Those comments were considered in the latest review of the document and many of their recommendations were adopted.
No recommendations for this finding
F5
The Grand Jury found that some PCF fire companies do not have or follow the approved bylaws which outline their basic authority, responsibilities of the fire company and its officers and members. Unfortunately I must agree with the finding.
No recommendations for this finding
F6
The Grand Jury found that PCF fire companies need to have nonprofit status as defined in the IRS Rule 501(c) to control and support their fund raising activities. I agree with the finding and will continue to work with the PCF's to attain that status. Since my inception as the Fire Chief we have had several companies reach their 501(c)3 and the goal is to assist all companies in reaching that objective.
No recommendations for this finding
F7
The Grand Jury found that the total number of PCFs throughout the county has significantly decreased over the past few years. The 10 "PCF" only" staffed fire stations, which have an authorized allocation of 200, currently have approximately 44 active PCFs. I partially agree with the finding. Nationwide, volunteerism numbers are dropping and the fire department is no exception. The PCFs numbers throughout the county have dropped, but it has been a trend for nearly 20 years. Some of the main reasons for the decline in numbers are listed in Finding #8 below. They include the increased state and federal training requirements, time commitments, family and job commitments and demographics. I would also include; the aging volunteer work force, and many unpaid hours of response. All fire departments must adhere to the requirements of mandated training and unfortunately our volunteers are not paid for training. They must justify continuing in the fire dept versus attending a paying job to put food on the table or pay bills. Many of our firefighters love this job, but have to make financial decisions to support their families. Another cause is the arduous duties of the fire dept. that have increased over the years; more calls, more gear, heavier equipment and some of our best volunteers have been doing this for 20+ years. For many of them, this is not their primary job and as you age this profession it is definitely more difficult. The main reasons for deaths in the fire service are heart attacks, and the cruel reality is that the majority of those deaths are in volunteers. This is not a new statistic and many of them know the trend so they chose to leave the dept. or not join at all. . 2012-2013 Grand Jury Report Fire Dept response
No recommendations for this finding
F8
The Grand Jury found that Recruitment and retention of PCFs has become more challenging due to:
No recommendations for this finding
F9
The Grand Jury found that the required basic training scheduled out of area for PCFs causes a time and financial hardship. I partially agree with the finding. While we understand the hardship, due to the financial constraints of Madera County Fire, we opted to allow Madera firefighters to join our Merced firefighters in the Basic Operations academy, held jointly with Merced County Fire Department, in an attempt to meet our Madera County current training budget. Our normal mode of operation is to hold our training within the county. We opened up the training for the Madera County PCF's in order to get more PCF's on board quickly to strengthen our responses in the communities. The PCF's were not forced to attend in Merced, but unfortunately there would not have been a County funded Basic class for the year and we did not want them to miss out on an opportunity for training.
No recommendations for this finding
F10
The Grand Jury found that the change of job classification for PCFs to "Extra Help" has caused the reduction in PCF benefits and rights which conflict with policies, ordinances and resolutions adopted by the BoS. I disagree with the finding. What reductions to rights and benefits have occurred with respect to policies, ordinances and resolutions? I would need more specifics in order to answer this finding. Classifying the PCFs as "Extra Help" in and of itself is not the issue.
No recommendations for this finding
F11
The Grand Jury found that a contentious work environment for PCFs regarding numerous forms of discrimination exists. I wholly disagree with the finding. There has been no evidence or proof of any form of discrimination. Additionally, I would ask again for specifics as to "a contentious work environment". There have been a few PCFs that have voiced resistance to the current direction of the fire department but the vast majority are thriving and working cooperatively with the career staff.
No recommendations for this finding
F12
Neither the BoS nor the Fire Chief has sought funding for PCFs through the SAFER or other programs/grants. 2012-2013 Grand Jury Report Fire Dept response I disagree with this finding. We have enrolled all of the Madera County PCFs in the "Death and Serious Injury" insurance through SAFER. We have funded PCF equipment through SHSGP a "Homeland Security" grant, Volunteer Firefighter (VFA) grants and California Firefighter Assistance (CFAA) grants, as well as any other grant funding opportunities we can participate in. We are so committed to grant funding that Madera County Fire has a representative on the Units Grant Committee to ensure we can take advantage of any grants we meet the criteria for. The challenge in grants is that many of them require a match and the financial situation of the County does not allow for us to be able to apply for as many grants as we would like to.
No recommendations for this finding
* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.