[Cris Alarcon. Img "Get Back Up" Ali in Manila]
During an Online debate Jimmy Chilcott wrote:
“Cris Alarcon I kept private previously, but your continued push to tout pioneer as a district that is fixed is a huge disservice to the public and to the firefighters in that district who struggle to have basic safety equipment. You continue to push a political agenda with complete disregard for the actual state of the department in pioneer.”
I replied: --- “Good lookin' dogs Jimmy Chilcott and that is why I will go easy on you. Decades ago I helped some PDs import Malinois from Belgium for service duty. Truly a wonderful breed.
Now to local polits -- Did I say that PFPD was doing fine? No. I said that a successful campaign to get the very difficult percentage of 2/3 of people voting to raise their own taxes is doable if you put convincing facts on the table and you are willing to make changes to your proposal based on stakeholder feedback.
I even met with Joe Harm privately to hear his objections and suggestions for the final, revised measure language before filing because I knew he would be a pain-in-the-ass. Preemptive work. Then we engaged the voters in a meaningful way by taking the info/dump to community events like the Grizzly community hamburger night rather than trying to get the public to turnout at our informational meetings.
This was all after two prior attempts by the fire agency itself to get local citizens to direct additional funding to the agency. They then hired consultants in local Politics to present their position to the voters as they did what they did best, help people in emergencies.
The point is that any claim that the bar of ⅔ vote getting people to raise their own tax is too high is invalide. Local recent comparable history shows that it can be done with those taxpayer protection standards, right here on the Western slope of El Dorado County when the voters are so moved.
From "It CAN be Done" to the after effects...
The fire agency was successful and the public passed the additional tax the agency requested. How the agency MANAGES its budget is an area of debate for nearly EVERY government agency, the Fire agencies being no different.
It is easy for those that deliver critical service to loose sight of the forest as they see so many trees. If those that are in the emergency services don't see their job as Vital, maybe they are in the wrong career. That said, it becomes very difficult to put the Quality/Quantity of the services provided against the cost the public is willing to pay for said services.
The prerogative "Bureaucracy" is used for good reason. In the Private sector the efficacies of Efficiency and Effectiveness is one single thought requiring a Balance to weigh “what is most effective” against simple Budgetary constraints -- or we would all strive for the "Perfect" regardless of the time and resources to get to the mythical "Perfect" balance.
In our Government, the Budgetary constraint of “Income” is perverted to "the Public SHOULD pay these taxes to get the best of the critical service delivered."
How do we as citizens bring reality back into government budgets?
Right here and Right now we see the process playing out. Generally the government always wants more money to do better/more of XXX. We public is the bill payer. Often the public will tighten the purse strings and the government will be forced to adjust to what the citizens find acceptable.
This week we saw a Fire Agency make a budget request of the service area voters. That increase was soundly defeated. The primary clapper on the tolling of the Bell of Defeat were the public’s feeling that 1) they are paid enough; 2) there is no real oversight; and Do we really need four butts in every truck?
Now the fire agency is looking over the ashes of a burned-down political campaign and kicking their boots on the ground to shake the crud off as they contemplate the next move.
As a person that knows very little about battling fires but a person with much experience in budgets and politics, it is a standard position and the Fire Agency might look at in a way that best suits their lives.
The need is clear - how bad it is needs to be looked at carefully, but fast. OK, we studied the “book” now what worked at the last fire and what did not work? “Hey, smoke” Ok, you here, you there, let’s roll. I don’t KNOW if that is how it is a firehouse, but that is how it is when you lose a political campaign. You grown, bush off the soot, take a deep breath, then run to the next battle.
The propomats of the failed Measure now have all the necessary information on what did compel people, what was unpersuasive, what was objected to, and to what degree of voter influence did key objections. That is the foundation for a successful “next” campaign if those factors are sufficiently addressed.
Just like a fire, a lot of thought about strategies goes on long before the first fighter blows through the door with an axe and hose. Gung-ho in the wrong direction, not so good. Gung-ho in the right directions, with a well thought-out plan, and a good team - well, nearly unstoppable.
Makes me think of the Firehouse Cafe - Burned down? Kinda. Gave up? No Way!
Cris Alarcon.
