Take the Poll: ICMA Plan or Paid Firefighters?

I am positive that the results of this poll will be skewed either way, but this is a blog where I sometimes do dumb stuff [like take polls]. Just please note that the results no impact on anything.

Our city insists that their ICMA Public Safety plan will give us better public safety at savings to the tax payers. Our Paid firefighters disagree, saying how they are better trained, time tested and needed in a dense area such as Long Beach. What public safety plan do you prefer?

What public safety plan to you prefer

 
pollcode.com free polls


Here is the link if the poll doesn’t load on your device:What public safety plan to you prefer

Please read the terms of service before you comment.

comments

15 thoughts on “Take the Poll: ICMA Plan or Paid Firefighters?”

  1. I applaud SBTC for getting your finger on the pulse of this issue. What I am genuinely surprised at is the lack of curiousity about ICMA. The fact that no entity has asked the obvious questions here is astounding? Who is this outfit and what is their connection to our City Mgr? As a known consultant by trade, it is obvious that the City Mgr would go this route, but what most residents don’t realize is that this study, as well as others, is skewed to the interests of the people who contract this. In English, the results are requested by the City BEFOREHAND. They simply ask the consultant to craft the reasoning and support report. It’s typical consult work. If the LBFD had contracted this outfit, it would surely have had a different bent. What would be interesting to know, is how the City got to ICMA and who the contact person at ICMA is. As the Council has told us before, TRANSPARENCY, right?

  2. I mentioned last night that ICMA donated money in 2007 to fight proposition to have a mayor. The gentleman is right. They write reports for the person who hires them to back up what they want to do

  3. The right thing to do is correct the critical management and infrastructure fractures that the icma said must be corrected first. Then actually assess the needs of the community by to the recommended diligence projects that the icma said should be done before any changes are considered. You will find out that we probably need increased fire and Ems protection that what the study shows. They gave 2 random alternitaves for the Ems model. They intentionally left the risk assessment of both the community and the department, and the scope of coverage to be completed by the city after the report was done. This was intentional so that it wouldn’t conflict with their alternatives in ems coverage.
    Maybe we should do a follow up with the icm with a question and answer period before moving forward with these drastic cuts.
    My vote is… Don’t cut off your arm to save your hand. And that is what the city is doing now. Departments everywhere are striving for what we currently have.
    Based on last nights meeting. There is a much different agenda going on. Jack is hiding behind a report and rob hates people wth disabilities. The icma report never brought that up even once, I wonder why it’s he is so hot for it.

  4. Democrats supported the mayor proposition. The Republicans were against it. ICMA was against it. Your information is invalid.

  5. I never said republican or democrat. I’m talking ICMA was hired. Why do you make it political? They do reports as the first gentleman said to justify the person who hires them actions. They donated money whoever was in charge to defeat the proposition. I have it your welcomed to read it

  6. The Paid Firemen have stated they will vote for the Republicans in November. Candidates have yet to even be announced but they are blindly supporting the Republican slate. The word around town is that the Republican leadership has already made it clear to the union that they will not bring any of the firefighters back and that their plan is to eliminate the entire department. This is a truly puzzling situation.

  7. I watched the meeting on the stream. Hard to hear alot of what was said, there was alot of, um, background noise.

    One point that really made me think was the depth of the sample size used to calculate the time that it took the first volunteer to arrive after the paid force was on scene. Certainly, 3 calls is hard to extrapolate into hard facts. My question is what have the paid force or the volunteers done since the report was released months ago to add to the sample size and what have been the results? Can both the paid and volunteers agree on the data?

Comments are closed.