How A Simple Staffing Change Could Save Millions

NY Daily News 5/29/09

With the city facing multibillion-dollar shortfalls due to the economic crisis, the Fire Department - like all city agencies - must do more with less. And since we have a budget that is 90% operational (i.e., devoted to front-line personnel, equipment and training), it's no surprise we have had to make - and continue to have to make - tough choices.

We've already cut several hundred civilian jobs and reduced our budget by nearly $100 million. Among the cuts that we've proposed for this coming fiscal year are reducing the number of ambulances we put out on the street every day; cutting the ranks of our fire marshals; and eliminating companies in firehouses where we have two or more units stationed.

In January we reduced evening shifts at four fire units that we now plan to close permanently on July 1. Another dozen companies would close sometime next year, for a total of 16 units eliminated at an estimated annual savings of about $18 million.

Even though we will do everything possible to minimize the impact of these proposed closures, there's no question that these difficult decisions will impact the level of service we can provide.

There is, however, a better alternative. As the mayor proposed in his two recent budget briefings, the city could avoid all these fire company cuts if we could achieve equivalent savings through a staffing change that requires the approval of the firefighters union, the Uniformed Firefighters Association.

Citywide, we have 198 engine companies with two different staffing levels: Two-thirds are staffed with four firefighters and one officer, while 60 engines have five firefighters and an officer. The "fifth firefighter" staffing level was agreed to in 1996 as the result of an arbitration settlement with the UFA.

No fire department in the country has five-firefighter staffing on engines. Most big cities - including Los Angeles, Chicago, Boston and San Francisco - have four or three.

While the union has argued that the reason for five-firefighter staffing is safety, the fact is that for two decades the majority of our engine companies have operated efficiently, effectively and, - most importantly -- safely with four firefighters.

We don't contest the fact that five is better than four, or that six is better than five. But given the current fiscal climate, how can the FDNY best continue providing essential services to New Yorkers while balancing fiscal responsibility to those same citizens we ask to pay for those services?

While trying to do more with less, it stands to reason that unless we are able to reach agreement on the staffing change, we are left with few alternatives other than reducing operations.

Which leads to the critical question of whether the public is better protected if we keep those 16 fire companies open, or close them and continue staffing 60 engines companies with an extra firefighter?

I think the choice is obvious.