Friday, December 01, 2006
Why Another Fire Study?
News today from the City’s Intergovernmental Cooperation Authority (oversight board) is that a firm called Tri-Data will be paid close to $200,000 to undertake a study of the City’s Fire Bureau. We wonder why.
Not only is there a long stream of documentation on the problems with the Fire Bureau—including the Competitive Pittsburgh Task Force, Pittsburgh 21, and the Allegheny Institute’s work on Act 111 and benchmark cities—but the oversight board just paid a firm $95,000 for a report delivered two years ago. Who knows where that money came from since the board was supposedly lacking funds.
The initial projection by the board’s executive director is that the firm will have a grasp on the data in six months time. Unfortunately, while the ICA is getting its preliminary results, the decision to reopen the Fire Contract might have already been made.
In short, the issue has been studied to death. It does not look good when the problems have already been adequately documented to go down that path again.
Our studies and others have pointed out that Pittsburgh has too many firefighters, too many stations, and too many generous contract provisions (such as mandatory staffing requirements) that render it far out of line with other cities.
Here’s the deal. The contract needs to be reopened in 2007 and concessions from the firefighters’ union need to be made. In a year when the City is facing a special election for Mayor and half of City Council is up for re-election, the issue of the Fire contract will be Pittsburgh’s political third rail.
The oversight board needs to put its weight into action, not study. But the comments of its chair leave a lot to be desired. She mentioned that it is up to the City, or the Act 47 team, to decide to reopen the contract. What, the ICA has no interest in the issue, even though it is spending $200,000 for another study? The board should not be intimidated by the last episode when its lawsuit over the fire contract was met with resistance and removal of board members.
The ICA’s actions seem a lot different from the intentions of the General Assembly when it created the board.
Not only is there a long stream of documentation on the problems with the Fire Bureau—including the Competitive Pittsburgh Task Force, Pittsburgh 21, and the Allegheny Institute’s work on Act 111 and benchmark cities—but the oversight board just paid a firm $95,000 for a report delivered two years ago. Who knows where that money came from since the board was supposedly lacking funds.
The initial projection by the board’s executive director is that the firm will have a grasp on the data in six months time. Unfortunately, while the ICA is getting its preliminary results, the decision to reopen the Fire Contract might have already been made.
In short, the issue has been studied to death. It does not look good when the problems have already been adequately documented to go down that path again.
Our studies and others have pointed out that Pittsburgh has too many firefighters, too many stations, and too many generous contract provisions (such as mandatory staffing requirements) that render it far out of line with other cities.
Here’s the deal. The contract needs to be reopened in 2007 and concessions from the firefighters’ union need to be made. In a year when the City is facing a special election for Mayor and half of City Council is up for re-election, the issue of the Fire contract will be Pittsburgh’s political third rail.
The oversight board needs to put its weight into action, not study. But the comments of its chair leave a lot to be desired. She mentioned that it is up to the City, or the Act 47 team, to decide to reopen the contract. What, the ICA has no interest in the issue, even though it is spending $200,000 for another study? The board should not be intimidated by the last episode when its lawsuit over the fire contract was met with resistance and removal of board members.
The ICA’s actions seem a lot different from the intentions of the General Assembly when it created the board.
