Hiring a consultant was not what we voted for Friday, June 26, 2009 By Jack Mitchell When Ron Watson first approached me about authoring a guest commentary (published June 19) on his concerns over Measure M funds, I was surprised. When he told me that the fire protection tax was being used to interview and hire consultants at a cost ranging from $32,500 to $50,500 to develop as one proposal calls it a "a Fire Protection and Emergency Organization Plan," I was more than surprised - I was sure he must be mistaken. I know I'm against that. We posted a reader poll asking the public if they felt Measure M funds should be used as such, and a resounding 86.98% voted against it. From the first day the poll appeared, my phone began ringing with various organizations saying I was doing a disservice to the various fire protection districts and to firefighters. This struck me as a little odd, as I was one of the people that supported Measure M and worked on getting it passed. The one piece that did come up, and that I questioned along with many voters was: Are funds generated from Measure M going to be used to assist in seeing our volunteer firefighter system cultivated into a paid system? To which I was assured that Measure M funds were not going to be used to add another layer of bureaucracy, and that the various organizations such as the Amador Fire Protection District (AFPD), the Amador Fire Protection Authority (AFPA), CDF and other players would agree upon a disbursement plan for funds so that we would see our tax dollars go directly toward the goal of achieving a paid firefighter staff. As one caller was quick to point out, Measure M funds are not going to be used to hire consultants. The plan is to use Prop 172 funds to hire the consultant. I find this particularly amusing since Prop 172 funds also are paid by the taxpayer, you and me. It is no secret that for the past several years there has been a battle from various fire agencies to figure out who is in command: that is, who is going to be in charge to disburse taxpayer funds to the various organizations dealing with firefighting and emergency response. Having seen these organizations work together to get Measure M voted in, I guess I figured they either had, or were very close, to developing an equitable system for distributing revenue. Apparently I was wrong. To put a quick fix to this whole situation I offer the following solutions, as opposed to hiring a consultant at $30,000 or $50,500. Give the fire agencies one week to come up with a plan to receive Measure M funds. If after a week they cannot come to terms or negotiate with each other - and I realize this has been a multi-year battle - eliminate the Measure M revenues from all the organizations that fail in that time period. Better yet, instead of hiring a consultant, let me develop a funding plan for the various agencies. I'll do it free of charge, with one caveat - my plan for each agency is non-negotiable. The fire agencies here work incredibly hard and are terrific - but, in my opinion, they crash and burn when they consider using taxpayer money to hire a consultant. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jack Mitchell COMMENTS ON THIS ARTICLE Please help Mr. Mitchell: If would please work up a budget for the seven fire districts and a seperate budget for the AFPD, SCFPD, JFD and Lockwood fire district partnership (four stations). All fire districts will recieve approx. 1.5 million total this year and be broken down by call volume and population. Include Chiefs, Captians, Engineers, Firefighters, asign duties scheduling and include paperwork and certificate filing for all districts. I am not in favor of hiring consultants and none have been hired yet but I am not smart enough to figure a budget myself, I need help. Please send to my e-mail address before next months AFPA meeting and I will happily present it to the board and help save tax monies that haven't been spent. - Reed Shugart (6/26/2009 4:06:19 PM)