.
Feedback

Lee McKusick, Director to Succeed Gary Riddell If Recalled

"As an elected board member I will work to retrieve the CalFire contract and carefully extend the contract for several years."

How much more or less will a stand-alone Coastside department cost the community?

One of the reasons I am running to replace Riddell is simple back of an envelope calculations indicate that a standalone fire department will have extremely high labor costs.

It doesn't even take a calculator to realize that 21 firefighters and 14 captains, managers and support personnel will see their 5 years of service crumble as the selfish voting majority of the Coastside Fire Protection District destroys the CalFire service relationship.

Here are the calculations: The stand alone department incorporates no management or labor saving technical improvements to the required fire and emergency medical services provided. That means you have to staff 3 fire stations with 3 firefighters for 24 hours per day and 7 days per work. The only cost difference will be the monthly salary.

Here we compare monthly salary between Cal Fire and a San Mateo fire department:

Cal Fire starting monthly pay for a Fire fighting apparatus engineer (paramedic) =$3557/month.

Source: FIRE APPARATUS ENGINEER (PARAMEDIC) 1756

San Mateo Fire Department Firefighter/EMT starting monthly pay = $6959.68/month.

Source: Firefighter/EMT or Firefighter/Paramedic for the San Mateo Fire Department

The pay ratio = $6959.68/3557 = 1.96.

How is the level of service of CalFire better or worse than the level of service of a standalone Coastside department?

Level of service in connection with fire and emergency medical services has a narrow technical meaning in the field of fire and emergency service. This is a well researched public safety goal that is not a valid justification for changing the fire department from CalFire to stand alone.

Director Riddell, the person I am seeking to replace, invokes something like level of service in his recall petition rebuttal statement. It seems to me Riddell is magnifying discontent with a deliberately complicated contract. A retired fire chief tells me Riddell was using  the same language about failure to meet contract obligations 9 years ago when he was on the Point Montara Fire Protection District. Buried in the distant past is a problem with getting better ems service presence for Montara. That original legitimate problem that a Director should try and solve has festered and grown to enormous proportions.

My goal is to provide you the best possible services regardless of who provides them, CalFire is not doing that. CalFire failed to meet its legal obligations in our contract and the California Fire Code and its moral obligations as a fire services provider.”

Source: Gary Riddell in the Petition for Recall served June 6, 2012.

There is a background story about “our contract”. The contract negotiated between the Directors and CalFire has reportedly 270 special statements called bullet points in a part of the contract called Exhibit E. With that many bullet points, it is obvious that Mr. Riddell can find as many breach of contract instances as he needs at any time for any reason.

Source: Exhibit E from the Fiscal year 2011 to 2012 CPFD and CalFire contract

Why Vote Yes or No on the Recall?

Yes. Here are three reasons:

1. The three Directors are showing unstable conduct by reversing a fundamental fire protection policy.

2. The three Directors are showing inappropriate care of more than $2 million dollars of accumulated operating cost savings by squandering that sum on “Transitional Organization”. Source: CFPD Budget for 2012 to 2013 showing Transitional Organization item

3. The Directors have become prisoners of too much outside campaign money and an oversized solution to a tiny little emergency services problem that started over 12 years ago.

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Half Moon Bay Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Loading comments ...
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Jon DeLong May 18, 2013 at 06:45 pm
With so many good Mexican restaurants in the area, why bother?
Cid May 17, 2013 at 06:14 pm
I enjoy an occasional Taco Bell, but in the same shopping center as Happy Taco with far better,Read More authentic LOCAL Mexican food! Nah! I do enjoy the Combo locations that have KFC & TACO BELL. (Face it, Americans like to have choices!). With no drive-through, perhaps it will be better than the average suburban stores along the El Camino. As for another chain restaurant in Half Moon Bay...What did you expect? Demographics will continue to dictate that we can still expect to keep our "Fast-Food-Free-Zone" between Linda Mar and HMB while "City Councils or Planning Departments in the Cities will attract them....for their tax base.
Dee May 15, 2013 at 08:07 pm
Seriously? Taco Bell? Next to New Leaf? How did this happen? Not happy about this addition and notRead More looking forward to seeing Taco Bell trash all over the place. Not sure about KFC ... we already have a fast food chicken place at Popeyes so we certainly don't need another. The high school students will probably frequent Taco Bell the most and keep it in business but I will not be going there that's for sure.
Carol Wexler May 18, 2013 at 02:42 pm
I would consider volunteering at the California State Parks but dogs are not allowed and I wouldRead More need to bring my dog.
pae May 18, 2013 at 11:22 pm
Misha, I understand where you're coming from, but that's what we don't want to do. One reason thatRead More all dog owners are being discriminated against is those few who don't follow the rules. It doesn't matter that there are bicyclists and horseback riders who don't follow rules, they're "OK," it's the dog owners who pay the price. We want an area where our dogs can exercise freely and legally, where we won't be bothered by people who are afraid of dogs or dislike them, and where they're not at risk from horses who spook. For those of us who live surrounded by Rancho land especially, we don't want to have to drive miles to a small, fenced lot with crowds of others seeking to exercise their dogs in the same small area. We're paying for this open space with our tax dollars, and we want to have access to it. There's plenty of room for everyone.
Misha Flores May 17, 2013 at 09:35 am
To be honest I would probably just let my dog run around without a leash anyway, except there's soRead More much darned poison oak around these hills. I don't want her to get contaminated and then I hug her and trouble ensues.
Anne Martin May 16, 2013 at 04:29 pm
I don't own a dog now but empathize with the dog owners who have been deprived of the right toRead More allow their dogs to run free in the national recreation area that we as taxpayers own. As a taxpayer, I want to know the rationale for this policy. If it is to protect horses from being frightened by dogs what is the basis for that? How many horses use the open space? It appears that dozens of people who have been able to enjoy walking with their dogs in the open space adjoining their neighborhood are now being grossly inconvenienced because some faceless bureaucrats are creating rules that may have no basis in reality.
Chris Vance March 23, 2013 at 03:00 pm
What are you doing with the excess Undaria pinnatifida that is found? Can we get some of it for ourRead More compost piles at the Pacifica Sanchez Library Garden?