Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 12201994 - 1.97 1.96 through 1.98 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on December 20, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Smith, Bishop, DeSaulnier, Torlakson, and Powers NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None SUBJECT: CORRESPONDENCE Item No. 1.96 LETTER dated December 7, 1994, from J. Harrison, Ambassador Project Coordinator, California Foundation for Agriculture in the Classroom(AITC), 1601 Exposition Boulevard, Sacramento 95815, expressing appreciation for the Board's sponsorship of the AITC Ambassador project in Contra Costa County schools. ***ACKNOWLEDGED RECEIPT /1.97 LETTER dated December 11 1994, from J. Myers, 11 Pino Crest, Walnut Creek 94598, commenting on and suggesting improvements to emergency response procedures. ***REFERRED TO CHIEF, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 1.98 LETTER dated December 14, 1994,from G.Wolfe,Chair,Central Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority, 4737 Imhoff Place, Suite 4, Martinez 94553, regarding a proposed solid waste collection franchise agreement. ***REFERRED TO DIRECTOR, GROWTH MANAGEMENT AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY i nereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Su isors on th date shown. ATTESTED ah 1 lcl4 L4 PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk of the B and of Supervisors and County AQdmiinistrator cc: Correspondents Chief, Contra Costa County Fire Protection District Director, Growth Management and Economic Development Agency ® • December 11, 1994 7RE�CEIV( 1 3 1994 Contra Costa Board of Supervisors 651 Pine Street, 11th FloorT ` Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Supervisors : When I first contacted Contra Costa County Fire Chief Allen Little in regards to a slow, unorganized response to a 911 call, witnessed by a number of people who were attending a soccer game, I felt that it probably was an isolated incident that should be reported to the man in charge of these responses, Chief Little. It was my hope that he would investigate, and then take the necessary steps to see that this would not happen in the future. The more that I talked with Chief Little and his deputy, Battalion Chief Clark walker, I came to realize that it is a much larger problem. Now that I have received a response from Chief Little in writing, (letter attached) it definitely confirms my fears . Fire Chief Allen Little just does not get the message! Chief Little says in his letter that the slow response was "adequate Lets take a look at the facts : 1 . No one disputes that once the fire truck arrived at the scene, it took them over five minutes to get to the victim. Chief Little justifies this slow response by the fact that the engine company personnel were met in the parking lot by the person who had called 911, a Mr. Fowles . His contention is that Mr. Fowles put them at ease about the condition of the victim, giving them the impression that there was no need to hurry. The fact is that Mr. Fowles had no idea what was wrong with the victim, was not medically trained, had not examined the man, and knew nothing of his medical history. The only thing that Mr. Fowles could relay to the engine company personnel was that the man was still alive. Mr. Fowles was just a bystander who volunteered to phone 911, a noble deed, but one that did in no way make him an expert on the mans condition. Now if being told that the man was still alive gives the firemen cause to relax, and not be in any hurry, then I suggest to you that it was exactly the wrong reaction. If they had been told that the man was no longer alive, then there would have been good reason to relax, take their time, as nothing more could have been done for the man. A better response to Mr. Fowles report would have been to take joy in the fact that the man was still alive and hasten to his side to make sure they gave every effort to keep him that way. 2 . Chief Little makes no comment in his letter as to why the engine company personnel were not prepared to immediately leave the fire truck when they arrived at the scene. Battalion Chief Clark Walker told me that they were trained to hit the ground moving when the truck arrived. Yet, they were in and out of their truck, and when the first was finally prepared and did leave the truck, the other two still remained at the truck, seemingly trying to get organized. In my opinion, the firemen should in no way be disciplined. In their minds, they were doing exactly what was expected of them by Chief Little, and Battalion Chief Clark Walker. Slow responses are "adequate" responses . In most cases, employees reflect the attitudes of their bosses, and I suggest to you that this is the case in this instance. Chief Little needs to look no further than the mirror to find what the problem is . I am sure that Chief Allen Little is a heck of a nice guy. However, when he accepted the position of Contra Costa County Fire Chief, he accepted the responsibilities that go with it. His attitude must be: There is not, nor ever will be, an excuse for a slow, unprepared response to a 911 call in my jurisdiction! Every response will organized and executed with the utmost expediency. Nothing else will be acceptable or tolerated. Until Chief little gets the message, and changes his attitude, we will continue to get these types of responses, not as an exception, but as the norm. Very truly yours, im R. Myer 11 Pino Crest walnut Creek, CA 94598 (510) 933 -9361 cc: Chief Alan Little Commander Walker Contra Costa Times 3 Contra Costa County Fire Protection District Fire Chief ALLEN LITTLE December 7 , 1994 Mr. Jim R. Myers 11 Pino Crest Walnut Creek, CA 94598 Dear Mr. Myers, In response to your letter regarding the November 15, 1994, emergency incident at Valle Verde Elementary School, Battalion Chief Clark Walker investigated the circumstances by interviewing the witnesses whose names you provided and the engine company personnel attending the incident. He found some confirmation of your description of the personnel's response as well as opinions that appropriate action had been taken. The Firefighter who treated the victim stated that he felt assured by the information relayed to him by Mr. Fowles upon their arrival and while walking to the victim. Battalion Chief Walker has concluded that treatment at the scene was adequate but there was a perception by some observers that the response was slow. I apologize for that perception and wish to assure you that Firefighters do care very much about the victims under their care. I respect your opinion and the effort you have taken to communicate your concerns. I take it very seriously and will follow up through appropriate channels within the District. Sincerely, ALLEN LITTLE Fire Chief AL:lr AL/myers.1tr ❑ 2010 GEARY ROAD-PLEASANT HILI.,CALIFORNIA 94523-4694-TELEPHONE(510) 930-5500-FAX 930-5592 ❑ 1500 WEST FOURTH STREET-ANTZOCH,CALIFORNIA 94509-1099-TELEPHONE(510) 757-1303-FAX 7548852 December 11, 1994 Letters To The Editor Contra Costa Times P.O. Box 8099 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 -8099 WHEN IS A SLOW 911 RESPONSE ACCEPTABLE? On November 19 , 1.994 , the Contra. Costa Fire Department answered a 911 call to the Valle Verde Elementary School during a soccer game in response to a man having, what we later found out to be, a stroke. Because of his having had a history of heart problems his family feared he might be having a heart attack. When the firemen arrived, they seemed to not be organized and took over 5 minutes to get to the man. They told us the slow response was justified because the person who had called 911 met them in the parking lot and assured them that there was no need for them to hurry. The facts were that the person who did call 911, and who met them in the parking lot, was just a bystander, was not medically trained, had not examined the victim, and knew nothing of the victim' s medical history. To discover these facts, all the firemen had to do was ask. The firemen had no way of knowing what the condition of the man, who was laying semiconscious on ground, was without examining him. Contra Costa County Fire Chief Allen Little, in a letter (attached) written to me in response to my complaint , concluded that the response was "adequate" . I suggest to Chief Little that A SLOW RESPONSE TO A 911 CALL IS NEVER "ADEQUATE" OR EVER ACCEPTABLE. No one should be more aware of this than our Fire Chief, who apparently does not get the message. Until such time as Chief Little does gets the message, slow responses in Contra Costa County will undoubtedly be the norm, not the exception! Jim Myers Walnut Creek cc: Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors ` Contra Costa County Fire Chief Allen Little 1. 97 �.5 December 7, 1994 FCLERK%-AR1DOFS � ���� w" - 8 1994 Contra Costa Board of Supervisors UPERVISORS651 Pine Street, 11th Floor ACOSTA�O, Martinez, CA 94553 Madams/Sirs : On Saturday, November 19 , 1994 , during a soccer game at Valle Verde Elementary School, a man suffered a stroke and 911 was called. The fire department arrived within minutes, but did not Seem to be prepared, spent much time getting in and out of their truck, and finally took a leisurely paced stroll, one by one, to the man who lay prone on the ground. It took an ,estimated five minutes between the time the fire truck arrived at Valle Verde, to the time when the firemen got to the man needing assistance. Afterward, when questioned by people at the scene about why they were so casual about getting to the man, the first fireman to arrive seemed embarrassed and said something to the affect that they had questioned a man who had been waiting for their arrival in the parking lot, and they had determined that there was not much of a reason to be in a hurry. (Not his exact words, but the content of his answer as I heard it. ) After complaining to Chief Alan Little about the incident, Chief Little asked Battalion Commander Clark Walker to give me a call . Commander Walker explained that he had talked to the men who, under his command, had responded to the 911 call. He felt that there was not a problem because the man who had made the 911 call met the firemen in the parking lot and informed them that he felt that victim had merely fainted, seemed to be conscious, and that there was no need to hurry. This explanation is ridiculous . The person who called 911 was just a bystander, had no medical training, had not examined the man on the ground, knew nothing of his medical background, and was unqualified to make an assessment of the victim' s condition. Unless the firemen could determine that the person who met them in the parking lot was someone qualified in making these determinations, such as an medical doctor or a paramedic, and had actually examined the victim, the prudent thing for them to have done would have been to get to the person needing help as quickly as possible. We found out later that the man had suffered a stroke. His daughter, knowing that the man had a pacemaker in his chest, thought that he was having a fatal heart attack, and pleaded for someone to call 911 . Two men ran to call 911 on a car phone. As stated earlier, the person who called 911 was just a bystander. December 7, 1994 VV Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Page 2 Commander Walker could offer no reason as to why the firemen were not prepared to leave their vehicle just as soon as they arrived. He did say that is what they are trained to do. As I stated previously, they did not seem to have their equipment organized when they arrived, took some time getting organized, and slowly left their truck one by one. What I am most disappointed about, however, is the fact that neither Chief Little or Commander Walker feel that they have a problem in the 911 response team. I would like to offer two suggestions that I feel would greatly improve not only the attitude of those responding, but also the 911 response time of our fire department: 1 . Take 5 or 10 minutes out of your next board meeting to ask Chief Little what he has done to assure that this will not happen again. It is not only your right to know these facts, but your responsibility to assure that the people of Contra Costa County have the best 911 response team that our money and efforts can obtain. 2 . Approximately once every six months, set up a scenario similar to the one depicted above and call 911 . Let the fire department know that you are going to do it, but not when you are going to do it. Have a representative of the Contra Cost Board of Supervisors on hand, as well as a member of the press to judge how well the response is made. I guarantee that if you follow the above two suggestions , Contra Costa County will have the finest response team in the United States . To do nothing would not only send the wrong message to our fire department, but would also help to assure mediocrity in our 911 system. Very truly yours, JR. Myers 1'm Pino Crest Walnut Creek, CA 94598 (510) 933 -9361 cc: Chief Alan Little Commander Walker Contra Costa Times e Y �. se CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY 4737 Imhoff Place, Suite 4 MARYLOU OLIVER,Chau Martinez, California 94553 �� JOHN B.CLAUSEN,Vice Chair GREGORY L.CARR,Director EVELYNMUNN,Director n c r, 1199 A SUSAN McNULTY RAINEY,Director !-!I_-1, 1 4 GENE WOLFE,Director FRED DAVIS,Interim Executive Director December 14 , 1994 CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS JOYCE MURPHY,Secretary of the Authority CONTRA COSTA CO. (510)229-4861 Fax.(510)229-5182 Honorable Chair of the Board of Supervisors County Administration Building 651 Pine Street, 11th Floor Martinez , CA 94553 Dear Chair Powers: County staff advised the Central Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority (CCCSWA) that on December 20, 1994 , the Board of Supervisors will consider entering a 20-year solid waste collection franchise agreement with Valley Waste Management commencing March 1996 for all of .the Central Contra Costa unincorporated areas. The purpose of this letter is to inform the Board that the CCCSWA strongly , opposes this action. The CCCSWA does not feel that this action is in the interest of the solid waste rate payers in Central County. . Additionally, this action does not foster the spirit of cooperation developing among the central county entities regarding solid waste matters. This cooperation has recently led to the successful completion of negotiations with Valley Waste Management that lowered the CCCSWA member agencies' residents' garbage rates by 20 percent. This agreement was negotiated with information on competitive disposal pricing from three different entities. This action takes place on such short notice with little apparent forethought or consideration of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District's (Central San) long-noticed intentions regarding future franchising in its current solid waste collection area. To this end, the CCCSWA, on both Central San's and the City of Walnut Creek's behalf, issued a Request for Proposal for solid waste and recycling collection beginning March 1996. Thus far, sixteen companies have expressed interest in bidding to provide these services. For the past two years, the CCCSWA has discussed this at meetings with County staff in attendance as well as with individual members of the Board of Supervisors. The CCCSWA has not only welcomed the County's feedback during the development of the Request for Proposal but was encouraged by indications that the County was willing to join the CCCSWA and participate- in franchising as an Authority member. Member agencies: �� Central Contra Costa Sanitary District City of San Ramon City of Walnut Creek ® Recycled Paper Honorable Chair December 14 , 1994 Page 2 Further, Central San has met with County staff over the past year regarding franchising issues in Central County. These discussions led Central San to believe that Central San would transfer its franchising authority in the Pacheco/Clyde area to the County and that the County would enter into a contract or memorandum of understanding with. Central San to continue franchising the remaining unincorporated areas of Central County as it has done since the 1950's. At this point, it must be said that while the County staff believes that the County has the authority to franchise in unincorporated central county, Central San does not share this view and hopes that a cooperative and amicable way to meet the interest of both jurisdictions could be worked out to avoid litigation and to benefit rate payers. The CCCSWA' s goal is to provide the highest level of service at the lowest cost to the rate payer. The competitive process on disposal costs recently used by us proves there is considerable potential for cost savings to the rate payers. Thus, information that a 20- year franchise agreement with Valley Waste Management, negotiated without benefit of competitive proposals, is before the Board for action is incomprehensible to us. This hardly provides for competition among solid waste collectors or recycling companies nor does it allow geographically contiguous areas to be served by one hauler in order to achieve the lowest collection costs. Further, the proposed agreement is not yet public to comment on terms and conditions of the proposal . The Authority again seeks your cooperation and hopes to resolve this in an amicable manner. it again requests that you do not act upon this matter at your December 20th meeting but begin discussions in earnest with either Central San for an agreement regarding franchising or with the JPA to cooperatively provide the best services to the rate payers at the lowest cost. Sincerely, Gene Wolfe Chair, Central Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority Honorable Chair December 14 , 1994 Page 3 cc: Board of Supervisors R. Adams, City Manager, Lafayette K. Alm, Attorney, Central San D. Blubaugh, City Manager, W.C. J. Calabrigo, City Manager, Danville F. Davis, Executive Director, CCCSWA R. Dolan, General Manager/Chief Engineer, Central San R. Hubbard, City Manager, Moraga C. Riley, Interim City Manager, Orinda ADS/Admin#2/Powers. ltr