Fool Me Once, Shame on You…
ByBuckle up kiddies, it is going to be a topsy turvy ride. I hope you have the stomach for it. We are about to go back onto that trill ride known as the DuPont-Fire-Levy-Tilt-a-whirl. Refrain from eating a big lunch because by the time both the city and the opposition stop spinning you around, you may be tasting seconds in your own buffet line.
Didn’t we just go through this? Weren’t we just waiting for the light to change, not making eye contact with the “volunteer” sign wavers? Didn’t we just clean out our inbox of emails from concerned citizens crying foul at the levy amount? And, didn’t we bookmark and check with obsessive frequency the Pierce County Elections web site, seeing what the vote differential was and how many outstanding votes remained?
The mayor recently added some new information to the city website (which proves that either a. She requested the information posted six weeks ago or, b. She can add information to the website when she wants to).
Let’s take a looksy at what she wrote here.
Here are a couple of highlights (or lowlights) that caught my eye. In the first paragraph, regarding the last levy request of $1.80/Thousand, the mayor writes:
“As you might recall, this measure was confusing and your City Council has taken great efforts to be sure that this current measure is well crafted and at a level that will meet the needs of the citizens…”
Confusing to whom? The citizens, or those who drafted it? I understood it perfectly. The city was asking for $450 per year for the same housing value stated here. Perhaps the mayor should restate the sentence so that it more accurately portrays the truth of the matter. In a perfect world, it would look something like this:
“As you might recall, your City Council and I were drunk with excitement at the possibility of fully funding the fire department with this levy and freeing the existing general fund money allocated for fire service to be used on pet projects. That is, until we were informed that this would be in violation Washington state law. By then, the ballot verbiage was already filed with the county. Oops.”
Another nugget contained within this letter is the reference to what we get for the money from Fire District #2:
“…the City would receive…public education programs for our schools, technical rescue services, hazardous materials response, dive rescue, and many other quality programs that our City does not currently offer.”
Does this sound a little like your teenage daughter trying to convince you how buying her a showroom new BMW 3-series is actually a better deal for you than buying her a used Hyundai?
Just how many “technical rescue”, HazMat, and dive rescue situations occur that warrant this level of service? Well, we could check our fire call reports except for the fact there is a glitch in the system at this time. Oh well, at least the fire department will be able to teach our school children fire safety without charging a nominal fee as a city event.
For additional information, another FAQ is provided.
Now, I must caution you, because if you get nauseous easily from spinning around, you may want to avoid this next section. Also, if you choose to click on the FAQ link you may be overcome with an overwhelming desire to check the bottom of your shoe. Don’t worry, you did not step in anything, that is just the stench of obfuscation.
Of note:
Are we annexing into the Lakewood Fire Department?
The answer given is “No” and there is a line regarding such an effort would require a vote of the people. What is not said is that is the city’s end goal, as documented by the mayor in her November 10, 2008 memorandum. Under point 5, she writes:
“[The April 2009 ballot measure] would also be consistent with our message that eventual annexation is our goal.”
Why don’t we just use volunteer firefighters?
According to the mayor, the Fire Services Task Force concluded that having volunteers would not meet the City’s fire service needs. That point has been hotly contested since it was announced. I cannot say for sure, but what I do know is that the DMC still states that we are to have a combination fire department.
13.01.010 Personnel.
Under the provisions of RCW 35A.12.100, the Mayor is in charge of the Fire Department. The Department shall consist of a Chief, one Assistant or Operations Chief, and other career and volunteer officers as necessary for the effective operation of the Department and as funded in the annual budget. Staffing for emergency response shall be primarily volunteer personnel augmented by career personnel. Up to 25 volunteers are authorized by the Department. (Ord. 97 § 1, Art. 1, Oct. 8th, 1970; Ord. 04-763 § 1).
As I read it, the law of DuPont states we are to have both career and volunteers, yet the city has not lifted a finger to change this code. Curious at best.
Why the rush to put the issue on the April ballot?
For the answer to this, I will refer to what is written in the FAQ.
“The ballot measure in April provides enough time to hire and train the personnel necessary to implement a contract for service. It also provides necessary time for negotiations and ratification of the contract for service by both the City of DuPont and Lakewood Fire District 2. Waiting to put a measure on the August or November ballot would simply not provide enough time to properly implement a contract for service in January of 2010.”
But that is not what the mayor said in her aforementioned memo.
“Putting a measure on the ballot in April would also allow for a fall back position for the general election in November.”
Fall back, as in a battle of attrition? Try again in August? Then again in November? How can the answers to the same questions change in four months?
The city makes it so difficult to support this important issue with poorly crafted documents. If we need all of this time to get personnel ready; and we need more money to stay within our agreement with Lakewood; and if annexation is our ultimate goal anyway, then why are we asking for another levy? Why not just get annexation on the table for discussion and citizen input then put that issue on the ballot?
To answer my own question, probably because the city keeps turning these ballot initiatives into a referendum on whether the citizens trust City Hall.
Trust is a big issue. The Mayor and Council are so deeply rooted in the city operation, and NOT rooted in the community (poor communication), most people do not trust them, and therefore will not vote yes on a ballot that appears to be contrived.
Obviously, as Mike shows you, the Mayor’s communication is really cheesy, like an instant Kraft macaroni and cheese lunch. Transparent yes, I see right through it.
Mayor Jenkins, you should be selling lemonade with the Brownies, you would be more convincing with that audience.
PS: My name IS Roger Bacon and I DO live here in DuPont.
Sounds like Mr Bacon is running for office by estabishing residency!
Here is how I see it, and I am pretty new to town. The council are a group of kids playing dress up in mommy’s clothes. They want to act just like Olympia. They do what they think they should do. The result is they play big shot.
I know times are tight, but I can afford the new levy amount ($1/$1000). That doesn’t mean I will vote for it. The problem is that no one in the city has the courage to say what it will cost after we join with Lakewood.
Do we really need dive rescue? From where? Fort Lake?
I find it interesting that the mayor chose to through council under the bus by blaming them for the confusion of the last ballot. If memory serves, didn’t the city attorney screw that one up?
Very shabby, madam mayor.
So what we get for 2009 improved communication is a formal letter from the Mayor, posted to the city website telling us about public school education and dive rescue team – There isn’t a puddle in DuPont big enough to swim in! Soon the marsh will be drained anyway.
Meanwhile, the DUPont fire department supplies are being sold off as surplus because our leaders have decided the equipment is not compatible with Lakewood. The Mayor and council are dead set on the direction of a Lakewood merge regardless of what we think? AND YET THEY DENY IT IN THE Q&A!!!!!!
No Thanks, I’ll vote no.
I don’t think there are enough fires in DuPont to warrant such a big tax increase. I believe we are missing EMT which is something I did vote yes for in 2006 and now it has been taken away, deemed less important than a museum, an event coordinator, and large staff of public works people.
Our Council and Mayor don’t get it, the people who vote and pay taxes are demanding accountability. Yet for anyone who speaks or writes, the voice is dismissed as one-off outliers from the “majority” population who remains silent.
DuPont would be so much easier to govern if it weren’t for those pesky citizens!
The biggest problem we have is that the Mayor is married to a Lakewood firefighter. She’s too tied up in this personally.
The water rescue they keep alluding to is in regards to Puget Sound and the Nisqually River. Almost 2 years ago, DuPont did assist in a water rescue in the Nisqually. Don’t be stupid to think that people don’t climb down the steep slopes to Puget Sound and cross the tracks to explore. They do. And DuPont Fire and Police have to respond if someone gets in trouble. When ever Sequalitchew Creek Canyon trail opens to the public, we will have easy access to Puget Sound.
The majority of our ALS calls stem from Patriots Landing. Why not have that facility shoulder some of the cost since that’s really the reason for having an ambulance stationed in DuPont? Did anyone fully investigate that before throwing the cost again out to the voters?
The Mayors letter is disappointing. She still doesn’t get the fact that City Hall – Council, and the attorney, tried to break the law. She’s still in denial.
You know, the thing about not updating the code to reflect the current situation drives me nuts. The City doesn’t care what the code says. They will change it when a developer comes in and wants to increase the size of warehouses or put in drive-thrus. But they never uphold it. Glacier’s mine proposal voilates our city code. Do you think that mattered? No. They sent it sailing thru with out batting an eyelash. So it’s no suprise that we can enter into a contract with Lakewood and be forced to not allow for volunteer staffing (a cost saving factor), yet not change our code. WHY HAVE ONE? NO ONE FOLLOWS IT! At the last council meeting, an ordinance was put forward for council to consider regarding loading zones around the elementary school. The police chief came up with a great idea on improving a bad situation. You know what council said? They disliked the fines associated with the code. Yet the fines that were suggested follow the DMC. You would have thought people on council would have known this.
The residents of this community are smarter than those sitting on council right now. We are not fairly represented when it comes to our IQ.
Assisting for a water rescue and the hope that the trail will open to Puget Sound does not constitute need. To pay for that now is insane.
Part of the problem with Patriots Landing is it was supposed to have onsite medical facilities, but Olympia said no. We all need ALS, so we cannot ask for them to shoulder more of the cost.
Otherwise, I agree. The mayor is too vested in fire union politics because it serves her households best interest. Let’s face it, if she were to oppose a department of nothing but professional (represented) firemen, her husband could face reprecussions.
Her letter is disappointing. I was just surprised she didn’t sign Bill McDonald’s name to it.
NO PARKING ALONG YELLOW CURBED STREETS ON MCDONALD AVE ARE A LOCAL LAW IN THE CODE THAT IS NOT ENFORCED, SOMETHING THAT THE CITY PUT IN PLACE FOR FIRE SAFETY AND TRUCK MOVEMENT. JUST ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THE CITY ORGANIZATION NOT FOLLOWING THEIR OWN RULES.
WHY TRUST AN ORGANIZATION THAT DOES NOT FOLLOW IT’S OWN RULES? WHY PAY NEW TAXES TO FUND A FIRE STRATEGY THAT IS NOT EVEN DEFINED IN THE RULE BOOK?
Wow! Sounds like the opposition remains strong. Where can we get information about the number and type of calls that are happening today in the City?
Put in a public records request to the City Clerk or email the mayor – her letter says to send her questions. They should have all this data from the previous years.
If you are going to search call records you better request to see Lakewood’s call volumes. How much of our $3+ per thousand post merger fire tax will be used for calls from Patriots Landing versus an overdose at a motel on S. Tacoma Way. Medical calls to Palisade Village versus a call to Tillicum.
WNM,
Good Luck with looking into the call volume and types of calls for the fire department (even with the Public Records Request). I doubt that you will find out very much, no one really knows what is going on, not even the fire chief. You can talk to the mayor, but you will just get the run around until you are belittled by the City Administrator or the Fire Chief, since the only thing that is important is the merger or “consolidation” with the larger fire department. That’s my experience with this, like I said good luck.
I would like to help defeat the dupont fire bond as the cost are super high at over 3400.00 per call they have 565 a year.only 4.25% are fire- 63.% are ems the rest are other lock-out or false alarms all cost us over 3400.00 this is way to high and the preposed bond is way jacked up email me at nodupontfirebond@aim.com also P.S the city webb cite has info you need to see on this
I think the cost is too high. I’m voting NO again until someone tells me what is the city doing to cut expenses in other areas.
they moved into a brand new facility and gave everyone a raise.
Sorry, for posting the links.
I have been a resident here for 10 years now and have heard this issue a few times. I am amazed how our city council both past and present are out of touch with the citizens. The council thinks that the citizens of this city are not capable of making an educated or informed decision. The city tried to push a high priced levy a few years ago when the citizens of this city voted it down. You would think that the council would get the message that we are not going to roll on this.
I can remember when the council had only five members and if you spoke against the council back then, you could expect belittlement from the council. The council has calmed down from the public lashings from the early days but it looks like they are taking on different tactics of dealing with outspoken citizens.
All we ask from our council members is to be fiscally responsible with our money. This does not mean funding your pet projects or your vision of how Dupont should look down the road. We live here also and we get a vote on what is best for this community. There is power in the vote!
http://www.co.pierce.wa.us/xml/abtus/ourorg/aud/Elections/Archives/Nov99/VP_pdf/dupprop1.pdf
http://www.co.pierce.wa.us/xml/abtus/ourorg/aud/elections/archives/sep03/dupont.pdf
http://www.ci.dupont.wa.us/files/library/a5e58489009c8e82_o.pdf
Is there a place where we can get Vote No signs on this to stick in our yard?
We are in the middle of a deep recession and like many others out there, I’m in the middle of a salary freeze at work and am hanging on to my job by a thread, and then the city council wants to take even more of my money. Money that I need to feed my kids. I’m sorry, if the city council can’t afford something, do what we have to do. DON’T BUY IT!. I’m sure there are other things less critical on their list of City expenses that they can cut. For example, that fancy new complex they just built for themselves. Maybe they should lease that out to business and move back into their old location.
I voted for this Mayor because she said she was going to come up with innovative ways to avoid raising taxes. Boy was I wrong. Like this website says, ‘Fooled me once….’
If you are interested in a Yard Sign for you home or another location e-mail:
dupontfiremediconelevy@gmail.com
(You will receive an e-mail detailing yard signs options.)