Open Letter to LaMacchia

August 22, 2000
Mr. Thomas LaMacchia
Treasurer-UFA
224 East 23rd Street
New York, NY 10001
Dear Mr. LaMacchia,

I find this letter very difficult to write, as I was always a staunch union member, however, I continue to be outraged at the treatment of retirees by their former unions, namely the UFA & UFOA. Concern for my members' well being is foremost in what I have to say, ergo, I will not list their names for fear of retaliation against them by the unions. I have personally experienced these tactics (President's Message-"Firelines" by Thomas Von Assen) but I will not be silenced by any libelous verbal diarrhea spewed by "out of control" union leaders.

I use the words "union leaders" cautiously, as the past dozen years at the UFA and UFOA have proven that term to be an oxymoron. These same leaders, if you will, chose to harass disability retirees, (castigating those who fought for their rightful inclusion in the VSF and had the guts to challenge the VSF legislation), by listing their names in every firehouse as some sort of enemy to both the active member and service retiree. This, of course, was not enough, so the UFA engaged the active firefighter and the service retiree to wage war against all disability retirees, effectively splitting "Brotherhood"forever !

The unions warned their new partners that "disability exclusion" was necessary or service retirees could expect a reduction in their defined benefit payment. Of course, service retirees fell for it lock, stock and barrel. I guess, they can't be blamed for their naivete, at that time. Well, even the poor service retiree has gotten an education, since that time. They've learned that keeping disability retirees excluded was only a "smoke screen". This diversion allowed the union to bolster the active man's prospective VSF payment from $2,500.00, the first year of retirement, to $12,000.00 starting in 2007. i.e. There was no threat to the service retirees' VSF payments. It was all a canard foisted on service retirees by the union.

The 1994 UFA contract with the City thus insured additional votes for incumbent union officials by guaranteeing an enormous VSF increase for prospective service retirees. We all know how the VSF was generated in the 1968 contract from pension moneys, contributed to equally by "all" members, and never meant to be distributed unequally. I will now remind you of the unions, City and courts responses to the recent VSF litigation:

1. The UFA said that they are a labor organization having no legislative powers or duties. As a labor union, the UFA contended, they simply "cannot be liable for damages caused by the action of state legislation that is found to violate Federal law." "They [Retirees] also ignore the fact that the payments are being made pursuant to statute, not pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement."

2. "The UFOA is simply not accountable for the passage and consequences of the 1970 amendment to the administrative code whichaltered the definition of retirees eligible for benefits from the VSF."

3. NYC said, "The proper place in which to seek their rights is the legislation which governs the topic of VSF benefits."

4. Court Case- "And that the intent of the parties to exclude disability retirees was effectuated by the legislature in the implementing statues."

The aforementioned quotes from the unions, City and the courts unanimously agreed it was the implementing legislation that excluded disability retirees and not the contract. The contract was declared, by the court, to be silent as who was to receive VSF payments. Disability retirees only wanted a legislative inquiry as to how and why disability retirees were excluded.

There was an inquiry bill in Albany, for years, yet the unions fought, behind closed doors, to impede that legislation, effectively choosing sides among their retirees. We all know why, now ! Retirees can't vote ! Active firefighters can ! A disgraceful lesson in "unionism" and "VSF-101" ! It has been a travesty, for the past 10-12 years, that both unions have been vicariously sleeping with the enemy. Real "labor leaders" would never sacrifice their retirees so active members could get raises.

No one knows better than the "Retiree", that the active firefighter deserves every penny he/she can squeeze from the City coffers. The VSF has been a windfall for the City ever since the unions chose to trade it in for the Defined Benefit Plan. This, along with the union's approval of assumption rate changes, has provided for contract raises ever since. The past dozen years continue to make it impractical to "earn" raises "the old fashioned way". It has been actuarially predicted, recently, that the City will no longer need to fund the pensions, as they will be self sustaining by 2002. Active firefighters' pension contributions have been absolved and the City had a $3.2 billion dollar surplus. What a ball real "labor leaders" would have had with that news. Union Presidents would have been on the front page of every newspaper rattling their sabers, threatening actions, etc.

The "Firelines" would have been filled with union demands, instead of members salivating over the weight loss of their President and V.P. Unfortunately, the active firefighter doesn't realize that in 1968 the FDNY Pension Trust was - $147 M. Yes, "minus" ! The UFA's "labor leaders" beat the City in the courts and thus the City was forced to infuse a couple hundred million into our pension fund. Those were very lean years for the City, yet the unions were still able, because of "hard nosed" negotiations, productivity and public opinion, to garner wage increases for its members. The City was literally burning and companies were doing more than 10,000 runs a year, but the leadership, somehow, had time to create a Security Benefit Fund, Annuity Fund and the VSF.

Today, we have to worry about what the unions are giving back or taking away from retirees. The union has become little more than a training ground for the next Fire Commissioner. One of my members recently voiced, "Please tell the union, whatever they have been doing for me for the past 12 years, to "STOP" as they are killing me." I laughed, at first, but it was actually a profound statement that deserved my attention. This leads me to the reason why I'm writing. I read, with much disgust, your recent column in the "Firelines" re: "Out-of-Control Costs Force Drug Plan Changes." This is pure, unadulterated chicanery which requires further review by all retirees.

You state in your article that the retiree SBF is operating at a deficit and has been forced to utilize reserve funds. May I ask, in simplest terms, how much does the City fund for individual firefighters and retirees each contract year ? Is their funding up to date ?

Are the unions going to capitulate, again, with the City and negotiate another lag in payments as in the previous contract, where SBF funding was held back until the last 2 years of a 5 year contract, allowing the City to save millions and, in part, guarantee active firefighter raises ?

This is no way to correct what you call a serious problem for the retirees SBF Plan. When an active firefighter retires, for argument sake, in March of any given year, does 3/4's of his yearly funding get transferred to the Retiree's SBF ?

In any given year, the amount of active firefighters remains constant, while there are approximately 500+ retirements and 300 retiree deaths. This would be a ball-park increase of 200+ retirees each year. Does the active firefighter's SBF Plan carry those active members, who retired, for the length of the contract or are those funds transferred immediately over to the Retiree SBF each year ?

How are the administrative costs shared by active and retired members SBF Plans?

Each question and example needs to be evaluated. You go on to state that the active plan is healthy because of the changes made in 1990. You credit some of this "health" to $0 for generic and $8 for Brand Name prescriptions for the active plan, yet this option was never offered to the retiree, even if it would have been $8 for generic and $15 for Brand Name.

Why wasn't this part of the solution in 1990 for the Retiree Plan ? Asking that veteran's obtain their Rx's from their local VA Hospital is a valid point and should be part of the solution. Some of your other options border on the ridiculous. You state, in the current round of contract negotiations, the UFA is "requesting" additional money from the City to bolster these funds. I'm sure you meant "demanding" additional money because we must keep up with the rising costs of drugs ! Although, you are correct about retirees, because of their age, using more Rx's than the younger active firefighter, you never mentioned the skyrocketing amount of drugs used by their dependents. Lastly, you skim over the possibility of Rx's being covered by Medicare. I trust that this will happen soon but I also trust that the union will have placed some of the absurd options into force which will never be rescinded.

What is needed is a retiree representative at union board meetings when retiree issues are being discussed or negotiated. Now that would be a good option ! Continuing with my dismay on other issues , I would like to clarify the unions "non-participation" in the hard fought, long deserved COLA that was won by retiree groups across New York State. If any retiree believes that the UFA or UFOA was "actively" fighting for this COLA, they need a wake-up call. It was a known fact, by the unions and the City, that a COLA would have a negative effect on any contract negotiations and a serious backlash by service retirees who were excluded from "Double Dipping", by the unions, in the 1988-89 contract.

The City and unions were counting on using those COLA moneys in the current contract negotiations. Now the City is claiming poverty, as usual, and guess who believes them ?

It used to be the City who tried to divide and conquer, but lately they have willing partners. Back to the 1988-89 contract. Are the unions demanding the return of the $25 Million that was handed over from the Fire Pension to the City in order to guarantee the Defined Benefit Plan ?

If it was recently declared illegal in the COBA package, then it was also illegal for both the Fire and Police unions. I can hardly wait to read the City's response when the unions take them to court over "our" lost $25 Million. When is this court action expected?

Oh, what front page news that would have been years ago, as I can just picture the PBA and UFA Presidents threatening the City to return those moneys or else! Hey, I have a good idea! If they don't have the $25 Million, maybe the unions would forego any planned court action and forgive the debt in lieu of the City funding an additional $10M into the Active and Retiree SBF Plans. A little "arm twisting" would be a very refreshing change! Speaking again about taking bows, let me inform the unions that it was "their agenda" that pushed for legislation which allowed the FDNY Mandatory Insurance to be increased to a maximum of $25.00 a month. It took a mere handful of talented retirees to beat back the powerful UFA and UFOA and have new legislation passed that would cap the monthly premium at $9.00.

Not to my surprise, after that landmark legislation was passed, the unions were taking bows again for others' hard work and foresight. Now I understand, more fully, how "a picture is worth a thousand words" ! Place pictures in the "Firelines" or "Trumpet" with union officials shaking hands and Voila!, you create a public relations coup. Congratulations to both unions for losing that fight! The unions are batting "a thousand" against retirees but at least they're consistent. The City will manage, with help, to recoup as much of the COLA money as they can, through manipulations of contracts and increases in retirees cost of benefits. Fortunately or unfortunately, I do not pretend to speak for all retirees, as there are still a few retiree leaders who continue to assume that the unions walk on water.

They exist only to bolster the hypocrisy of unions actually caring about retiree issues and sit by idly in order to gain certain favors in return. It may simply be in the form of privileged information, invitations to gala affairs, having union officials travel to their home state to watch some Fire Dept. related softball games, attending retiree dinner/dances or re-unions, while taking those all-important pictures. I have nothing against taking pictures but these pictures also speak a thousand words. Certain retirees seem to share that same bed I alluded to previously. I hope they are not shocked, in any way, if our unions choose to capitulate again with the City. Retirees' hopes for fair representation rests with retirees, especially those residing in N.Y. City and State.

Most have learned valuable lessons in the Mandatory Insurance fight and the battle for a permanent COLA. I hope the unions have witnessed the beginnings of a great force within the retiree community and have learned never to inure the ire of the retiree, or underestimate their resolve. Retirees are eager to use the ballot box to elect representatives who are sympathetic to retiree issues. Hopefully, they will be the same senators, assemblypersons and city counselpersons selected by the unions. The sad part is, a good portion of the $100,000.00+ in retirees' dues will go for lobbying, by the union, against retirees. That's a fact! In closing, I sincerely hope you can shed some light on the questions I posed in this "open letter". Again, this correspondence is my judgment and opinion and is in no way meant to represent the opinion of all retirees nor is it meant to be an indictment of "all" union officials. I hope you enjoy many successes while leading the union into the 21st century.

cc: URFA

Sincerely, John Gilleeny, Pres. Keystone-FDNY-Retirees

Links

Letters to UFA/UFOA	CURRENT NEWS	Links	Links II	Letters FROM UFA/UFOA	Articles of Interest
03/02/01 Letter to Gorman	FDNY-BLDG-DEPT 03/16/01	FDNY	Martin/St. Lucie	03/02/01 Gorman to Gilleeny	CHIEF 10/20/00
02/23/01 Letter to Gorman	NY Times 03/09/01	UFA	firefighter's search engine	12/16/00 GALLAGHER to Gilleeny	C S S - 10/23/00
01/03/01 letter to Mirro	City, MLC Sign Pact	UFOA	NYC COPS		CHIEF 11/03/00
12/22/00 letter to Gallagher	HMOs return 'little'	URFA	Find your representatives		CHIEF 12/22/00
12/15/00 letter to LaMacchia	Bravest		Staten Island Retirees		AARP 01/01/01
09/26/00 letter to LaMacchia	Rescue	Palm Beach	Fire Chiefs		CHEAPEST? 01-05-01
08/22/00 letter to LaMacchia	Health Ins. For surving spouses	SCARF	Pete Castellano		HEART 01-15-01
		Las Vegas	FDNYPHOTO.COM		DAILY NEWS 01/12/01

URFA Minutes	HONOR "THE BRAVEST"	MEMBERS Speak out
11/29/00	Donald Franklin	SLANES LETTER
12/27/00		Reader sent
		Reader sent this about the Irish 03/15/01

UFA - Response

Dear Mr.Gilleeny:

I am writing in response to your lengthy letter of August 22, 2000 addressed to Tom LaMacchia. Given the nature and scope of the questions you raised, I felt it appropriate that I answer your letter on behalf of the Executive Board.

I must initially note that for someone who professes a desire for union solidarity, the sarcastic and angry tone of your letter is disappointing. Nevertheless, I shall respond to the questions you raised. I intend to publish his response in Fire Lines.

Accordingly, I have tried to set out the substance of your questions and comments, as well as my responses thereto.

1 . YOUR COMMENT:The UFA intentionally opposed VSF for disability retirees and tried to divide our membership so we could get a defined VSF benefit and guaranty re-election of the Board.
2. RESPONSE: Your version of the history of the VSF and the position of the union in regard thereto is completely inaccurate. You seem to argue that the UFA desired to wage war against disability retirees and create some sort of diversion to improve the VSF benefit for active members who would retire for service in the future. You thenadvanced the ridiculous proposition that the 1994 UFA contract, "giving guarantying an enormous VSF increase for prospective service retirees", was a way to insure votes for union officials. The reality is that from the moment it was proposed, the VSF was meant solely for service retirees. The UFA records, the legislative history and unanimous Court decisions have supported that view. The VSF was intended as a way to supplement the retirement incomes of service retirees which has been surpassed by both line-of-duty and non-senice disability retiree pensions. The agreement with the City to sponsor legislation creating the VSF was conditioned upon it being limited to service retirees. No amount of historical revision can change that fact.

Opposition by the UFA and the PBA to lawsuits seeking to expand the benefit to disability retirees was in no way an attempt to "split" our retirees or garner votes in future elections. Rather, it was based on a desire to protect the VSF for service retirees and prevent possible dilution of the benefit if it expanded to other groups.

Nor does it make sense to claim that the change from a benefit determined by stock performance (skims) to the fixed benefit we now enjoy was only intended to appeal to active voting members. As I am sure you 6ow, the fixed VSF benefit applies to anyone who was retired for service since 1971. Thus, the benefit extended to many members who had retired long before the defined benefit was obtained.

II. YOUR COMMENT:The UFA opposed an "inquiry bill" to determine why disability retirees do not get the VSF because only active members vote for the UFA Board.
RESPONSE. As far as the UFA opposition to the "inquiry bill" proposed by disability retirees, it had nothing to do with votes for UFA office. As with our opposition to the litigation brought by disability retiree, we were again concerned about jeopardizing the service retirees' VSF benefit should the legislature seek to force an expansion of the benefit upon the City. If you are so concerned about "honesty," then I am certain that you know that the "inquiry bill" was a way to obtain legislative approval for expanding the benefit without regard to what effect it may have on the entire VSF scheme.

III YOUR COMMENT:The UFA has become "too cozy" with the City.
RESPONSE: Your claims regarding the UFA "sleeping with the enemy" for the past 10-12 years are ridiculous. I am proud of the UFA!s accomplishments in the last decade in improving both the wages and working conditions of our members. Have we gotten everything we should get? Of course not. Have we worked hard to improve the lives of our members? Absolutely!

IV YOUR QUESTIONS ABOUT SBF RETIREE BENEFITS:
(1) How much does the City fund for active and retiree members and is the funding up-to-date?
RESPONSE: The City funds $1,125.00 per year for active members for SBF benefits. The City contributes $1,275.00 per year for retiree SBF benefits. The Funding is up to date.

(2) Will the UFA again delay City SBF contributions to the end of the new Coflective Bargaining Agreement so that we "guarantee flrefighter raises"?
RESPONSE: You seem to conclude that delaying an increase in SBF benefits to the final two years of the last contract was some sort of scheme to favor active members over retirees. You forget, however, that active firefighters got no raises for two years. 'We negotiated an increase in SBF benefits in years four and five of the 1995-2000 CBA because it was the only time money was available for that purpose. To read in some inappropriate motive behind the delay or to conclude that it was an attempt to favor active members over retirees in simply untrue.

(3) 'When a firefighter retires, does the City immediately fund his retiree benefits or wait until the next year?
RESPONSE: Please be advised that as of the day of retirement, the City immediately ftmds retiree benefits for the member and prorates those benefits based upon the number of months remaining in that year.

(4) How are administrative costs shared between the active and retiree Security Benefit Funds?
RESPONSE: Great care is taken to accurately share or divide the administrative costs as fairly as possible. We prorate office space, employees' salaries and - administrative costs based upon the number of people and time spent working for retiree and active members. If anything, we err in favor of the retirees by limiting their costs in comparison to active members.

(5) Why is there no generic drug co-pay for retirees?
RESPONSE: Be advised that at the time we instituted a co-pay for generic drugs for active members, we did so based upon the recommendations of our outside consultants on how to keep our Fund solvent. At that time, they also explored a generic drug co-pay for retirees, but found that it did not make any financial sense to the Fund. It would simply not result in sufficient savings.

Indeed, the UFA Executive Board is very proud of the measures it has taken and the responsible manner in which it has acted in maintaining retiree benefits. Our retiree Funds are in far better financial shape than the Funds of many other unions. Please note, however, that given the increase in the cost of generic drugs, we are again considering the issue and may be able to put in a generic drug co-payment for retirees in the near future. We will let you know as soon as our consultants have completed evaluating the problem.

Furthermore, I assure you that not only the UFA, but every other union in the City, is attempting to get a substantial increase for their welfare funds in the latest round of collective bargaining.

V. YOUR COMMENT: The UFA and UFOA opposed a pension COLA because it would hurt contract negotiations and cause a "backlash" by service retirees who get the VSF.
RESPONSE: To imply that the UFA did not support COLA for retirees is SIMPLY WRONG. The UFA has consistently supported COLA legislation that finally was successful in the last session. To suggest that the UFA opposed COLA to avoid a "backlash" by service retirees is ridiculous.

VI. YOUR COMMENT: The UFA wanted to raise the monthly life insurance premium for retirees to $25.00. The retiree groups limited the raise to $9.00 not the UFA.
RESPONSE: With regard to your comments implying that the UFA tried to impose a $25.00 per month increase on retiree life insurance premiums, you are misconstruing the facts. The UFA, in attempting to avoid the need for future legislative efforts, asked for a $25.00 cap. We never had any intention of seeking such an increase.

Instead of focusing on all the things the UFA has done which in your mind are counterproductive to retirees, maybe you should be focusing on theaccomplishments of this Executive Board in the last few years. The permanent COLA which is an item that many Executive Boards and retiree groups have been trying to accomplish for over a quarter of a century is now law. That was achieved through the efforts of not only retiree groups, but also the efforts of this Union. Although this COLA is not perfect, it is a start and opens the door up for possibilities for future legislation.

The Tier reform which was created as a way of saving the City during the financial crisis in the 1970's has also been addressed. For the last three decades, Tier II members were forced to pay a disproportionate amount of the pension liabilities in order to help our pension system. This has now been properly rectified. It was not accomplished under any previous Boards but has been corrected by a concerted effort of all the Uniformed Unions for the betterment of all active members in the Tier 11 system. It also addressed the Final Average Salary disparity which was dumped on Tier II members as a way of helping our financially strapped pension system in the old days. I don't remember anyone jumping up and down to help the "new" firefighters in the 1970's and beyond - your silence then was deafening. Yet this new benefit will now enhance pensions for almost all Tier II members who retire now and in the future. This too was accomplished because of our strong legislative initiatives.

Through the Municipal Labor Committee which represents over 300,000 city workers, an attempt is being made to give a much needed boost financially to our Health Benefit Program for both our active and retiree members. This effort could lead to a much needed relief to our already overburdened benefits plan. This too, we hope to accomplish before the start of our next contract through an exerted effort by all the City's union leadership

Finally, the new Death Gamble law restored another piece that bad been carved out of our Tier II members depriving them of a death benefit for members with more than 20 years of service, until now were treated unequally due to Tier reform. It took the legislative efforts of this Board and the UFOA to balance the books whereby the families of our fallen brothers who die while still active can be treated to the same benefits whether they are Tier I or Tier II and thus creates a better benefit for their surviving spouse.

This is what your union is attempting to accomplish for our active and our future retirees along with trying to improve benefits for all of our current retirees. ]Rather than focusing on all the negatives maybe a more exerted effort should be spent being proud of your union and supporting all of our efforts for all of our members - both active and retired. Then maybe, both actives and retirees can enjoy true solidarity. Tough decisions had to be made by all UFA boards throughout our great 80 year history and they will continue to be made by this Board to protect all of our benefits. As we all know no one can keep everyone happy all the time. AR I can promise you is that your Executive Board will continue to do what is right for both our active and our retired membership.

Fraternally,

KEVIN E. GALLAGHER

President

FDNY Chief List issued Despite UFOA Lawsuit
By Mark Daly (The Chief - Friday, November 3, 2000)
A 181-name promotion list for Chief Officer (Fire) that is at the center of a dispute between the Fire Department and the Uniformed Fire Officers Association was established Oct. 25 and approved for use in filling Battalion Chief (Fire) positions.
The list, No. 9541, results from an April exam that was changed during the filing period last year from a Battalion Chief test to one for Chief Officer, a broadband title created at the request of the Fire Department to combine the Battalion Chief and Deputy Fire Chief positions.
The UFOA filed a suit over the broadbanding and in July won an injunction preventing it. The city has appealed the ruling.
In approving the new list for use, William J. Diamond of the Department of Citywide Administrative Services made clear that as a result of the pending litigation, "nothing in the establishment of the subject eligible list is to be interpreted as also classifying the competitive title of Chief Officer (Fire)." The broadbanding cannot proceed until the new title is classified.

March 9, 2001 Commissioner of Fire Dept. Loses Support of Officers
By KEVIN FLYNN - NY Times

Seven years ago, when the Giuliani administration took office, a corps of uniformed chiefs managed most of the Fire Department. But Fire Commissioner Thomas Von Essen, in a process begun under his predecessor, has restructured the agency's leadership by trimming the number of desk jobs for chiefs and replacing many of them with civilians.

To some commanders, the removal of chiefs from managerial roles is symptomatic of what they say is Mr. Von Essen's troubling disregard for the opinions of career fire officers. To Mr. Von Essen, it is but one step in a struggle to bring accountability to an agency that he says has long been handicapped by clumsy administrators.

"Managing the department is a job that the chiefs, in general, don't really want any part of," Mr. Von Essen said. "They want to work 24-hour tours and be off for a few days. They are not interested in being there every day making tough decisions and allocating resources so that every dollar is spent wisely."

That sort of blunt, impolitic language can land a commissioner in hot water. And in Mr. Von Essen's case it has.

Last night, the Uniformed Fire Officers Association, which represents 2,500 officers, from lieutenants to deputy chiefs, passed a no-confidence vote on Mr. Von Essen to protest what union leaders call a dictatorial style of management.

The vote, the first of its kind in the department in at least three decades, was spawned by the union's objection to the way Mr. Von Essen handled a particular disciplinary matter involving two deputy chiefs. Last week, 60 chiefs asked to be relieved of some of their duties to protest his actions. But the feud between Mr. Von Essen and his senior commanders has actually been brewing for a long time.

Capt. Peter Gorman, the union's president, said chiefs and other officers are upset by what he called Mr. Von Essen's arbitrary transfer of commanders, his penchant for settling scores, his dismantling of successful programs and the diminished roles chiefs play in managing the department.

Some senior chiefs once directed firefighter training and oversaw the maintenance of the department's vehicles and buildings. Now civilians hold those jobs. Other senior chiefs once supervised divisions and battalions from positions as borough commanders, but those jobs were eliminated several years ago. The restructuring process began under the previous commissioner, Howard Safir, but it has been accelerated by Mr. Von Essen.

The number of senior chiefs has dropped to 10 from 24 over the last seven years. The number of deputy chiefs has gone to 49 from 70 over the same period. And now, Mr. Von Essen said in an interview, he is bringing in a civilian as deputy commissioner to help manage the Bureau of Fire Prevention, one of the agency's core units with responsibility for building inspections and permits.

It seems, Mr. Gorman said, that Mr. Von Essen, the first firefighter ever to vault from that rank directly into the commissioner's chair, carries an anti-chief mentality, a grudge against supervisors developed during his days in a ladder company: "He took his own, personal, anti-chief agenda and took it to the top of the organization," he said, "and whether you like chiefs or not, you need generals to run your army."

But Mr. Von Essen said Mr. Gorman's view was the flip side of the truth. "I don't have a chip on my shoulder," he said. "Maybe they should get over the fact that there is a firefighter who has done an excellent job of managing this department for five years."

Mr. Von Essen paused at one point during an interview filled with criticism to note that he continues to believe his chiefs and other officers are the finest firefighting strategists in the world. But, as he put it, "they leave a lot to be desired in the everyday management of their divisions." Mr. Von Essen said the managerial lapses are often an outgrowth of the firehouse culture. Firefighters and officers become accustomed to working schedules that compensate them for long days: they work three consecutive shifts and are given a few days off. Deputy chiefs, he noted, earn $120,000 a year but work only 88 days because of the 24-hour tours. Later, when they become senior managers required to work Monday through Friday, it is a hard adjustment, he said, especially when there are few salary incentives. "Past practice has showed that many of the chiefs in the waning years of their career would grudgingly take a position to manage the department at its highest levels, but they never really committed to the tough decision-making that was necessary," he said. "And then before they got the expertise they needed, they would be retiring."

James Boyle, director of the Fire Science Institute at John Jay College of Criminal Justice and, like Mr. Von Essen, a former leader of the firefighters union, said: "Tom Von Essen always felt that the higher ranks in the Fire Department did not work the five days. That has always been a bone of contention for him."

Mr. Gorman said deputy chiefs had nothing to apologize for. "They passed four promotional exams," he said. "They have put 30 years into the process. I don't see anything wrong with that, anymore than I see anything wrong with a superintendent of schools making $120,000 while teachers are making $60,000." New York is one of a number of cities that have hired civilian managers for administrative posts once held by uniformed chiefs, said Chief Alan Brunacini of the Phoenix Fire Department, who lectures on managing firefighting agencies.

"You could teach them to do brain surgery as well as a brain surgeon," Chief Brunacini said. "But most of the training that fire officers receive is very tactical training."

Department officials said they were considering increasing managerial training for officers, perhaps along the lines of the Police Department, which sends many of its rising stars to a program run by the business school at Columbia University.

Currently, Mr. Von Essen said, many of his mid-level managers have a hard time keeping track of relatively simple administrative matters. He cited as an example a department program that allows firefighters to take emergency days off as long as they promise to work a replacement shift within 30 days. As it stands now, he said, there is a backlog of more than 2,000 shifts that firefighters owe the department.

Mr. Gorman said the department had complicated matters by refusing to allow firefighters and officers to work a replacement shift unless there was a manpower shortage on the day they selected. And, he said, the department had ignored a proposal that would allow them to pay back the time with vacation days.

"You need to involve the people in your top command," he said. "They have to bring you where you want to go. Von Essen is saying, `I don't need these guys. I can do it without you.' "

Lowering Standards Unions Object To Fire Cadet Classes
By Mark Daly (The Chief - Friday, November 3, 2000)
Uniformed Firefighters' President Kevin Gallagher and Uniformed Fire Officers' Assocation President Peter L. Gorman are opposing a plan by the city to expand the Fire Cadet Program, saying their unions should be consulted on any proposal that may affect firefighter safety.
The two union leaders testified at a recent hearing held by the Department of Citywide Administrative Services concerning a proposed change in city personnel rules that would allow the Fire Department to hire an unlimited number of Fire Safety Cadets in the Non-Competitive Class.
Helps to Diversify
The FDNY wants to use the part-time position to attract city residents in college to the fire service, basically to fulfill Fire Commissioner Thomas Von Essen's goal of diversifying the department, which is 94-percent white.
The Fire Safety Cadets will be hired without competitive testing and will work part-time during the school year and full-time during the summer as fire safety educators, according DCAS. After two years of service, they will be able to take a promotion test for Firefighter and be appointed to the job ahead of any eligible on an open competitive list.
"While it supports the city's diversity efforts, the UFA is concerned that the preference given to the cadets will erode the high admission standards of the FDNY," Mr. Gallagher said in his testimony to DCAS.
Entree for Low Scorers
"While the city has rarely gone below a score of 95 in choosing candidates from its hiring lists, it will be able to hire eligibles who scored as low as 70 on an identical pro-motion test," the UFA leader said. "The city has already begun to do so with the current promotion list for Firefighter,” he charged.
The list includes many former cadets who joined the emergency Medical Service so they could qualify for the exam as permanent employees.
"This effort to achieve a more diverse firefighting force will unquestionably lower the standards for hiring of New York City Firefighters. It will put firefighters and the public at risk," Mr. Gallagher said. "Any candidate scoring - in the 70s, or even the 80s is not likely to possess the necessary skills to perform at the level we have become accustomed to."
Mr. Gorman called for the city to open negotiations with the unions on the issue, saying, "the first question is - how many?"
When the Metropolitan Transportation Authority wanted to begin a Work Experiecnice Program at New York City Transit for welfare recipients, it met with Local 100 of the Transport Workers Union "and they agreed on a number," Mr. Gorman said. "We believe the department should sit down with us."
No 'Exclusive Rights'
The UFOA leader also said that granting what he called "exclusive rights" to city residents to take the promotion test would fly in the face of state laws that allow residents of the surrounding counties to compete for the job.
"It takes the power of appointment away from the Legislature where it belongs," he said. First Deputy Commissioner William M. Feehan advocated for the rules change, calling it an opportunity "to open up the ranks of the department to young men and young women who are residents of the city.
'The intent is twofold," he added. "To seek out young men and women and expose them to the department, give them an idea of possibly working in the Fire Department, and also to allow us to do what we can't do enough of now, which is fire safety education duties and fire prevention duties - things we don't intend to do with the uniformed forces of the department.
Also backing the expansion of the program is the Vulcan Society, an FDNY fraternal group for black firefighters.
"We're 110 percent behind the expansion of the program," said the group's president Fire Lieut. Paul Washington, in an interview. "That program was put in place largely due to our pressure to have the Fire Department diversify. We are totally against their opposition."
According to Mr. Washington, Fire Safety Cadets "are in fact more qualified than a typical candidate coming off of the open-competitive list in that they are already Fire Department employees. They are certified to be EMTS, which is higher than' a CFR-D," he said, referring to a medical first-responder certification required of all incoming Firefighters. 'That's a very big part of what the Fire Department does now, and as working EMTS, they're already doing that. The vast majority of Fire Cadet candidates scored high on the written and the physical," he asserted. To pretend that they're not qualified, that doesn't ring true."
"The FDNY has been selective in its use of the new promotion list," Mr. Feehan said after the hearing. "About 140 of the 187 candidates on the list were appointed," he said, "and many of those that weren't will likely never be given a chance at the job."
He added that the low scores on the list could be misleading. "The candidates' raw scores were adjusted statistically - a process called "z-scoring" - to produce the final rankings," he explained. "We may have guys who scored higher or as high on the written and the physical as the top group on the open-competitive exam." he said.
"Usually with z-scoring, the adjustment is upward," Mr. Gallagher responded. He said that in addition to setting a high cutoff score for the promotional, the department could answer the union's objections by instituting more rigorous training for cadets.
Any alteration of the city's personnel rules must be approved by the state Civil Service Commission. The testimony at the hearing will be submitted to the Commission, a DCAS representative said.

Subject: Rx: ....and that price is often their health."

14 Honored at Fire Memorial Not There, But Not Forgotten
By MARK DALY (Excerpted - "The Chief" - 10/20/00) Fire Commissioner Thomas Von Essen said the veterans on the list brought to mind the city's frequent blazes in the 1960s and 1970s - "what we still call the war years." "Those years, thank God, are now a fading memory, but the toll in life and health to our Firefighters who fought those fires day after day and year after year can never be fully known," Mr. Von Essen said. In addition to those who died in the line of duty, "countless others paid a price, and that price is often their health ….The members we honor and remember today gave, this department and this city the best they had to offer."

New Medicare Premiums Deductible Rates Set For 2001

( Civil Service Sentinel - 10/23/00)The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) today announced the 2001 rates for the Medicare Part A deductible and Part B monthly premium amounts paid by beneficiaries. These amounts are recalculated each year to reflect changes in health care costs and Medicare law.
The Medicare Part B monthly premium will be $50 in 2001, an increase of $4.50 from this year, but still significantly lower than earlier year projections. The Part B premium covers physician services, hospital outpatient care, durable medical equipment and other services outside hospitals. Most of Medicare's 39 million beneficiaries opt for this voluntary coverage.
In addition to health care costs, this year's increase reflects legislative changes that increase Part B spending. The beneficiary paid Part B premium represents 25 percent of total Part B spending. The Part B premium has been relatively flat in-recent years.
There was no increase in the premium last year, an increase of $1.70 in 1999, and no increase in 1998. Accounting for inflation, the premium has risen by less than a dollar since 1994. "While the increase for 2001 is necessary to cover higher costs and legislative changes, we have still succeeded in significantly holding down Part-B beneficiary premiums over recent years," said Michael Hash, acting administrator of the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA), which runs the Medicare program.
"Total premium increases for our beneficiaries have been less than half the amount originally projected when the Balanced Budget Act was passed." Estimates following enactment of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 had projected that Part B premiums would increase from $43.80 in 1997 to $59.40 in 2001, a four-year increase of more than $15. However, the premium announced today for 2001 represents an actual four year increase of less than $7.

Firefighter's Out of Coma

By SCOTT SHIFREL Daily News Staff Writer 1-16-01

For the first month, Karin Kuhland practically lived in her son's hospital room, gently talking to him and praying that someday he'd wake from his coma.
On New Year's Day, it finally happened.
Derek Kuhland, a firefighter severely injured when he was hit by a car while crossing Queens Blvd., opened his eyes.
"You can imagine how I felt," Karin Kuhland said yesterday, standing a few feet from her son's room. "It was the happiest day of my life. And today, he really looked very much alert."
The off-duty firefighter is part of a rising toll of victims on what what many believe is the city's most dangerous road.
Less than a week before Kuhland, 31, was hit Dec. 4, a 14-year-old girl was struck and killed on the boulevard. Since then, a parade of police and politicians have promised increased enforcement and ongoing education to make the road safer.
But it has been the parade of friends in Kuhland's room in the second-floor intensive-care unit at Elmhurst Hospital Center that has helped the most, his mother said.
While Kuhland is doing better, he is far from recovered. He hasn't spoken, is still connected to a slew of tubes and wires, and had surgery on his spinal cord last week, she said.
"His medical bills could be tremendous later on," she said.
To help, some of his friends at the Powerhouse Gym in Flushing have started raising money.
"Derek is the type of guy would give anyone the shirt off his back," said James Rappaport, one of the gym's owners. "We're just doing what we can."
In late December, Rappaport and his partner, Dennis Divone, placed a sign telling about their friend's plight next to a water jar and raised $2,500 in about three weeks.
Karin Kuhland said every little bit gives her more hope as she watches over her youngest son, massaging him, talking to him, being with him.
"I work on his legs and arms every day, and I can feel a little bit of resistance here and there," she said. "It will be a long process, but I'm sure it will work out."

Reader sent this one: "pick the mutt being hired by dopey disney"!

View My Guestbook
Sign My Guestbook