Fire Department Services Reducing and Bureaucracy Increasing

I have found the Fire Chief's presentation along with the mayor's letter to be telling of the changes happening in the fire department.  Both of these individuals have gone on the defensive explaining these changes.  This defensive posture gives me cause for concern.  When someone delivers a proposal and they are defending it before opposition has surfaced there is something else happening.  This action means there is a lack of confidence in the message and delivery of the proposal.  This proposal has changes in staffing buried under complicated and misleading explanations, and false claims.  Now the uncomfortable part for the presenter(Fire Chief) and the supporter(Mayor) have been identified.  After reviewing the proposal I can see the amount of fire suppression vehicles is reduced in the winter season.  Reducing the number of vehicles to fight fires in the winter is a reduction.  The claim that there is no reduction is false and not even deserving of the term misleading.  The term lie makes people uncomfortable and some find it offensive so I will leave it at a false claim.  It is completely false that there are no reductions.  4 vehicles in the summer and 3 in the winter.  I would think a fire in the winter requires the same amount of fire suppression vehicles as in the summer.  There are increases happening.  The bureaucracy is increasing with the administrative staff at the fire department.  Perhaps a training officer is needed.  However I thought that happened last year with the creation of an administrative deputy position.  I will lightly touch on the topic of revenue generation. This is not something the fire department should be tasked with.  The proposal has fire inspectors generating revenue(fines) during the winter and then back to fire suppression in the summer.  I find this offensive to year round residents.  Reduced fire suppression vehicles and increased inspectors in the winter.  I think firefighters should be fighting fires rather than these other projects.  I want the same fire protection in the winter as the visitors receive in summer.  This is not the case with this proposal.  All of these changes are for a projected(a political promise) savings in a few years.  This proposal is a step backwards in fire fighting with an increase in costly bureaucracy.

Some points to be taken:

1.  The number of fire suppression vehicles will reduce from 4 to 3 in the winter.

2.  Savings are projected years down the road like many other government claims.

3.  The proposal involves revenue generation which means more policing and fines.

4.  Previous professional studies suggested increasing fire suppression capability.

5.  You can not keep the staffing level the same, put people in office positions, and say the fire protection side of the department has not been reduced.