voiceofsandiego.org: Slop... Francis: Firefighters Over Opera
an independent nonprofit |
Support This Service

Francis: Firefighters Over Opera

Published: Friday, May 18, 2007 6:05 PM PDT



So I was surprised the other day to see businessman Steve Francis's think tank, the San Diego Institute for Policy Research, trumpeting a poll that showed the public supported a pay increase for San Diego firefighters.

Obviously this is kind of a moot point as the City Council and mayor decided a couple of weeks ago not to raise firefighter salaries across the board.

Nonetheless, it was a pivotal issue. The mayor took the unprecedented step of giving police a large raise the same year he proposed freezing the salaries of the firefighters. And it forced several City Council members to make difficult decisions about whether to go with the mayor or support the firefighters -- who would have accepted a 2 percent across-the-the board raise proposed by Council President Scott Peters.

I noticed a comment from Francis in the press release about the poll that mildly criticized the mayor for not giving the raise.

The poll, conducted by Competitive Edge, reported this:

In the latest SDI/CERC Public Opinion Barometer, 61 percent of San Diegans disagree with the Council and Mayor’s decision not to give City firefighters a 2 percent raise.

And Francis said this:

When it comes to firefighter’s salaries, the public seems to be saying that they wished City leaders had looked harder for cuts that could have been made to fund a small pay raise for the men and women of the San Diego Fire and Rescue Department.


I called Francis to clarify. Was he saying the firefighters should get a raise? Was he criticizing the mayor and City Council for not giving one?

"I criticized the way it was handled -- treating the firefighters as a commodity whose value the market determines," Francis said. "In regards to whether or not they should have been given a raise or not certainly it should have been looked at more seriously."

This is interesting. You'll remember the mayor justified freezing the salaries of firefighters on the idea that, because so many people want to be firefighters, there was no logical reason for raising their salaries. The message to the firefighters from the mayor being, like a good free-market man, if you want more money, quit and find a better job.

This view was backed up by Erik Bruvold, who is the president and CEO of Francis' think tank, which put out the poll.

Bruvold hosted our own Café San Diego not too long ago. He wrote a series of posts justifying the use of the market to determine firefighters and city employees pay.

Here was Bruvold's first post that day. This was the thrust of the piece:

It really isn't too much of a reach to say that when we talk about fairness when distributing scarce resources. It isn't too far until we are talking about asking "from each according to ability and to each according to his needs" as well as the kind of wallpaper that would look good at the dachas of party officials.

That is why a second way of resolving this debate is so attractive -- using market signals to determine what wages are needed to attract and retain quality employees. Is recruitment a problem? Are too many of our employees quitting? Is morale so low that productivity is suffering?

Now I believe the answer to these justifies the mayor's course of action.

I had assumed Francis thought along the same lines.

Nope.

Besides holding that firefighters weren't commodities for the market to price, he said there was money in the budget to fund a raise for firefighters.

"When you're, as a city, giving $6 million to the arts and half a million to the opera, there's money available," Francis said. "When you go to the opera, you see a lot of people wearing fur coats. I think it sends a terrible message to the firefighters to tell them that you're not willing to give them a small 2 percent raise, which is below inflation rates, at the same time you give money to the opera. I'm not sure why we're subsidizing these arts programs when we're not taking care of our men and women in public safety."

Meet Steve Francis, the populist.

-- SCOTT LEWIS




26 Comments so far on this story...

There's no question the public sector should be protected from market forces: the best services of the public sector are not profitable. To name a few, there is education, infrastructure management, police, fire and medical services, parks management, and others. In fact, some of these and others could be done as a profit-making venture, but then delivering these services would be highly inequitable, with pricing and quality of services based on ability to pay. For-profit hospitals raise serious concerns, only the well off can afford good private schools, and there are always grumblings about toll roads. To manage public saftey services like the private sector manages employees is therefore wrong -- the police are not mercenaries working for Blackwater! And with regard to support for the non-profit Arts & Culture sector, check with the Ancient Greeks and see what they had to say.

Posted by Christopher Hall | reply to this comment
May 18, 2007 7:28 am

First, I haven't figured out yet why Francis's opinion should be any more important than any other guy I stop on the street. He doesn't seem any smarter than the average joe. Second, Sanders didn't say market forces should determine whether the firefighters get a raise; he said that given the financial straights the city was in, and the fact that the market wasn't demanding a raise (e.g., FFs weren't leaving, yet, etc.), he couldn't justify giving a raise - not that he didn't want to give them a raise. Third, "looked at more seriously"? Is Francis kidding? Where was he during all this? But like a clock twice a day, Francis is right about the Opera and other arts. But would the FFs been happy with 2%? Not a chance. They would have called it a slap in the face. And a populist? Right.

Posted by Steve who? | reply to this comment
May 18, 2007 7:48 am

Francis says people wearing fur coats to the opera is a reason the FF should get raises??? Does he know who is wearing those fur coats??? Most likely FF wives. Now-JF should be jumping in here right about..... 5....4.....3....2...

Posted by Billy Bob Henry | reply to this comment
May 18, 2007 8:12 am

Wow, that is interesting.I almost have to wonder if the attitude is a result of the polls.One other thing, Scott, it is a moot point for now... but this is only a single year contract.The city and Local 145 will be back in negotiations in 7 months or so.Did anyone else notice the article in the U-T about how the city found another $4 million?Interesting that they 'found' that after negotiations with L145... as I recall several more council members were willing to give a raise if only they knew where the money was coming from.

Posted by JF | reply to this comment
May 18, 2007 9:22 am

Well Chris you always have an interesting point of view. I agree with you about the transfer of wealth and gov's role in providing certain services. But... I don't agree we should pay a premium for it. Don't confuse the lack of a profit motive and egalitarianism with getting ripped off. A market exists for these services, its just that the market is made up of government participants. Thus, competitive pricing can still work, after all there is still no shortage of fire fighters. Maybe a more effective argument is the one of geographic dispersion: that is we need to give them a raise so we can have fire fighters who live in San Diego rather than Ramona.

Posted by Basic Civics | reply to this comment
May 18, 2007 9:43 am

It's good to see that one of our local right wing think tank millionaires finally got it right. Firefighters are not a commodity to be traded like pork bellies or corn. It is horrible leadership when the Mayor encourages your well trained, highly competent workforce to leave for another job. The citizens should realize that the Mayor is deliberately chasing off the firefighter workforce so he can give money to the special interests like the Opera. And if we're going to hold the Mayor's feet to the fire in regards to paying the “market value” of an employee, then someone should put a stop to the outrageous bonuses he is giving CCDC members, I don't see any of them leaving the city for better pay. BBH you’re a moron.

Posted by BenEfit | reply to this comment
May 18, 2007 9:42 pm

Thank you for your unique insight, Scott... How'd you hear about this poll?

Posted by Robert E. Lee | reply to this comment
May 18, 2007 10:41 pm

Robert - On SDI's Website. Sign up and we will send you emails on all of the studies, polls, op eds. link

Posted by Erik | reply to this comment
May 19, 2007 7:56 am

Finally, Erik, I already subscribe to your email reports and polls. Unlike some people, I like to be exposed to a diversity of views, so I do find the info I recieve from SDI to be of some interest. You and I are probably not totally apart on all issues, but we are miles apart on the FF compensation issue. It is my core belief that public safety is the Number One duty of government. That being the case, I think that FFs and paramedics are the equal of police in the public safety 'equation'. At this point, SD FFs are not leaving at the rate the SD police are, but it's coming. Then what???

Posted by Robert E. Lee, 3 | reply to this comment
May 20, 2007 11:29 am

While I'm engaged right now in my stream of consciousness, let me continue by asking Mr. Francis: Are you indeed running again for mayor? I think Scott Lewis is definitely on to something with that... I'd love to be the proverbial 'fly on the wall' as I imagine a scenario where Erik Bruvold and Steve Francis are meeting together in a panic, trying to reconcile the notable differences between their views about FF compensation versus the results of the poll, where, again, the poll respondents very much differ with the views recently espoused by Erik... lol!!!

Posted by Robert E. Lee, 4 | reply to this comment
May 20, 2007 11:41 am

There's some interesting info on Francis' website regarding the amount of local taxes that filter their way back down to the city.Care to comment on that Erik?Also, what's happened to the Prop 172 money?That was supposed to support ALL of public safety, PD and Fire.Yet here in SD County, the Sheriff keeps most of the dough.

Posted by JF | reply to this comment
May 20, 2007 11:47 am

Hey Sanders,You're a big fan of market forces. Market forces can support the opera.They have customers that pay. The firefighters don't.

Posted by melkuw | reply to this comment
May 20, 2007 9:49 pm

Interesting question JF about the Prop 172 money; the County handles all 172 money and distributes it according to their “formula”. The County eventually spreads some of the money around, but granted, a great majority of the money goes the Sheriff and County DA’s office. Now if only the County had a fire department…guess it will take another Cedar Fire to get them off the dime on that subject! Better still, let’s get an initiative started that changes the County Charter to include fire/medical protection and we might see some action—as it stands now the County has the beginnings of a fire department but it will never be funded the way Supervisor Jacobs is trying to get it done, she’s just throwing up red herrings to cover her inability to get the fire department funded!

Posted by Howiek | reply to this comment
May 20, 2007 10:27 pm

C'mon folks - how many of you are aware that the firefighters already make 80% of the highest paid salaries in the City? Along with a work schedule that allows them to work another job if they choose. Salaries should not be set based upon PR!

Posted by KnowYour Costs | reply to this comment
May 20, 2007 11:29 pm

JF - You should sign up like RFL did. You would know like he that Steve's views about Firefighers were clearly noted a couple of weeks ago (http://www.sandiego - "A Better Way to Work with Firefighters") and helps frame why he thinks that the salary negotiations were poorly handled. I would note that appeared BEFORE the poll's results were known. And yes, San Diego is horribly disadvantaged by the distribution of taxes in our state. We wrote an op ed about that early in the month and referenced a great piece of research out of the new york city independent budget office (http://www.ibo.nyc. Sign up, you will get email notification about new polls, studies, and op eds.

Posted by Erik | reply to this comment
May 20, 2007 11:42 pm

Maybe I am not seeing the big picture, but it seems there is total dysfunction at Steve’s new venture. If they aren’t blasting the mayor they are contradicting one another. It just seems strange to me that based on the Francis website, they released an oped, a poll, and a press release all saying one thing and Eric saying another? Seems there is a lot of communicating going on there. Keep up the contradictions Steve and company because they make for good news.

Posted by Wing Man | reply to this comment
May 20, 2007 11:50 pm

Maybe you can explain the 'disconnect', Erik. I just read Steve Francis' recent op-ed piece, which you reference here. First, I agree with him that employees -- firefighters, or whomever -- can't just be treated like 'a can of soup' or some other commodity. No dispute there. But where does Mr. Francis come up with his vague generality in the piece that the public opposes the compensation that FFs are receiving??? He states: 'The firefighters also must understand based on media coverage there is a public perception their benefits are excessive and the public may therefore be unsympathetic to a pay raise.' Anyone without an understanding of the issues can claim that...

Posted by Robert E. Lee, 5 | reply to this comment
May 21, 2007 12:20 am

This must be another one of Bruvold's favorite recipes, one part Francis has the cake and one part Bruvold wants to eat it too. Referring to the FF pay debate, Bruvold says "...using market signals to determine what wages are needed to attract and retain quality employees." is "...so attractive." Later, Francis criticizes "treating the firefighters as a commodity whose value the market determines...". "I see," said the blind man. Francis continues, "In regards to whether or not they should have been given a raise or not certainly it should have been looked at more seriously." Is there a definitive position in that Pelosi-speak? Bruvold seems to me like he could be a rabid Dave Matthews fan and potentially a PETA sympathizer, but Steve, I thought you knew better.

Posted by Carmen Cham | reply to this comment
May 21, 2007 1:56 am

Erik? Mr. Francis? Well???

Posted by Robert E. Lee, 6 | reply to this comment
May 21, 2007 9:28 pm

There is nothing really that suprising that participants in think tanks might have divergent opinions. For example, here is an interesting study from Bruce Katz, et. al. at Brookings that talks about the future of the Great Lakes region and the importance of rethinking pensions in light of global competition link Conversely, here is a Brooking scholar in front of Congress testifying for EXPANSION of pensions. link Different opions stand as testimony to the fact that we are trying to live up to our mission of providing policy research to enliven the debate and improve policy making in San Diego County.

Posted by Erik | reply to this comment
May 21, 2007 11:10 pm

I also submitted what I believed was a thoughtful 'Letter to the Editor' on this topic, but I guess it was too much for "Voice". In it, I questioned the huge discrepancy between what Erik Bruvold has recently stated on this site about firefighter compensation, versus the starkly different results of the poll his organization (SDI) conducted. The poll showed that respondents overwhelmingly disagreed with Mr. Bruvold about the mayor and council's decisions not to give the FFs a raise. Oh, well...

Posted by Robert E. Lee, 7 | reply to this comment
May 22, 2007 1:01 am

Yes, Erik, and that's a BIG 'disconnect'!!! If the poll results had come out the other way -- and again, bearing in mind that SDI, and not just Erik Bruvold, in my view, can be described as 'conservative, limited government' -- I just think that Mr. Francis would have come and said something along the lines of, "See, I/we told you so.' If I'm wrong, then please disabuse me of my notion that SDI is as I described it: conservative, limited government. Erik, I've already said I'm actually not opposed to such a philosophy, but let's keep things consistent. There are some of us out there who can think independently, and spot hypocrisy or opportunism, etc.

Posted by Robert E. Lee, 8 | reply to this comment
May 22, 2007 1:16 am

Eric, you said "There is nothing really that suprising that participants in think tanks might have divergent opinions." But lets not confuse policy experts with management. Usually the founder and president would be on the same page. I cannot say I am an expert in the field of think tanks but the francis institute is no think tank, it is a hack job. You attack everyone around town and give nothing back. JUST STOP.

Posted by The Ring Master | reply to this comment
May 22, 2007 3:34 am

I think Ring master hasn't looked at the workd (www.sandiegoinstitu I believe there is value in reviving a bi-monthly update on the performance of the region's economy. We provided a study widely cited and used that discusses how other Mayor-COuncil cities balance budget making powers. We are putting out the only poll of public opinion in the region on a regular basis - asking questions in an extremely fair manner. And we are brining to the attention of the public quality work like that found in the NYC IBO report. Boy, not too bad for being in place for less than 6 months. Future work will study the transition strategies to get employees into a 401K style plan and how best to think about outsourcing.

Posted by Erik | reply to this comment
May 22, 2007 5:08 am

Oops, I whined a little too quickly. The letter I referenced below has just been published here on 'Voice'. Erik, let the debate begin -- anew. And please understand -- Erik and everyone -- I like to keep it about substantive debate, not personal attacks or invective. I do not, for example, associate myself with the comments of 'The Ring Master'...

Posted by Robert E. Lee, 9 | reply to this comment
May 22, 2007 6:38 am

Confusing Steve Francis with Populism is alarming; not funny. Worse is the idea that market forces should be an indicator of utility and compensation for firefighters. Fighting fires is a needed public service; its need ought to be measured by the structures likely to be involved and the men and equipment needed to fight fires in them. The military has a similar plan form: they figure out who a likely opponent may be, organize men and munitions to meet likely threats, improvise on demand and demand a suitable share of the budget---and get it. Perhaps the firemen ought to figure out how to make fire fighting a jobs program for Republicans; then we can revel in the finest firefighting apparatus on earth.

Posted by Dennis T. Sullivan | reply to this comment
May 22, 2007 11:54 pm


Reader feedback
  • Users may post more than one comment, but should not pose as multiple users. Multiple posts from the same IP address but with a different user name on each will be reviewed to determine whether abuse has occurred.
  • Posts with overly personal attacks or unsubstantiated allegations may be edited or deleted.
  • Please be patient with the posts -- there may be a delay before they appear on the site -- and make sure to enter the code in the "image verification" box.
Post a comment
Name:
Email:
Comments:
Current Word Count: Verification Code
4eca028

Scott Lewis on Politics

The Scott Lewis on Politics blog, abbreviated cleverly as SLOP, is a collection of observations, insights and the occasional scoop on public affairs in San Diego. Please feel free to e-mail Scott at scott.lewis@voiceofsandiego.org.


Listen to voiceofsandiego.org's radio program on AM 600 KOGO: Latest Episode (November 8): Scott Lewis and Michael Zucchet talk about the city's budget

Subscribe to the Podcast Feed



MOST POPULAR STORIES:



MOST POPULAR STORIES:


Copyright © 2009 voiceofsandiego.org. All Rights Reserved.